Translated material
The Constitutional Court allowed investigators to read correspondence from gadgets without a court decision
According to the KS, the inspection and examination of information in electronic memory of the seized subscriber devices does not imply a special court decision on this.
The Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court) of the Russian Federation considers it possible for investigators of correspondence from phones, tablets and computers without appropriate court permission. The definition of the COP states that the inspection and examination of information in the electronic memory of subscriber devices withdrawn during the production of investigative actions does not imply a special court decision on this.
Dmitry Prozorovsky, serving a sentence of imprisonment, filed a complaint with the court. The applicant disputed the three articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation-“The grounds for the inspection” (Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), “The Procedure for the Inspection” (Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the “Procedure for the appointment of a forensic examination” (Article 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
The complaint states that the provisions of these articles do not immediately comply with six articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since, according to it, they violate the right to the secret of correspondence, postal, telegraphic and other messages.
Prozorovsky believes that disputed articles allow the possibility of obtaining a preliminary investigation by the information about the compounds between subscriber devices, texts of correspondence, postal and other messages during the inspection and computer-technical examinations of the seized subscriber devices, without receiving a court decision.
As follows from the complaint, when considering the criminal case of the applicant, the courts of the first and appeal instances refused to satisfy the requirements for its defense on the recognition of unacceptable evidence of the inspections of electronic media of the information containing information about the texts of messages. The courts motivated their refusal by the lack of the need to obtain a court decision for such an inspection.
The Constitutional Court, in his decision, recalled that investigators inspect objects in order to detect traces of a crime or clarify other circumstances that are relevant to a criminal case. According to the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the inspection can be performed before the initiation of a criminal case and at the place of the investigative action. The exceptional cases include when the inspection is required for a long time or it is difficult to conduct it in place - then the objects subject to inspection must be seized, packed, sealed, certified by the signature of the investigator, the definition said.
Moreover, the COP indicates, only those objects that can be related to the criminal case are subject to seizure, and in the protocol the individual signs and features of the seized objects are indicated if possible. The seized things can be the subject of forensic examination.
“The inspection and examination in order to obtain information that is in the electronic memory of subscriber devices seized during the production of investigative actions in the manner in the manner prescribed by law does not imply a special court decision on this. Persons who believe that the conduct of relevant investigative actions and the procedural decisions made are able to damage their constitutional rights, including the right to the secret of correspondence, postal, telegraphic and other messages, may challenge these procedural decisions and investigative actions in the manner prescribed by Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, ”the CS notes.
Thus, the norms contested by the applicant cannot be regarded as the constitutional rights violating him in the aspect indicated by him, and therefore his complaint does not meet the criterion of admissibility, the court said. In this connection, the Constitutional Court refused to accept the complaint for consideration, this definition is final and is not subject to appeal.
“Practice has long developed when the police, the TFR or the FSB come with the decision to search or examine the premises,” the head of the “Agora” Pavel Chikov in his Telegram channel comments on the decision of the KS. - In the course of these operational or investigative actions, carriers of information, including phones and computers, are removed. Not being parrynced and encrypted, their contents become accessible to employees of the organs, including private correspondence. ”
Based on this, Chikov concludes that ordinary Russians cannot count on protecting private life in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, "therefore password gadgets and encrypt their contents."
Read also:
Report "Agora": 115 thousand cases of restrictions on the freedom of Runet for 2017
?
Putin: There will be no black funnel, but anonymity on the network greatly interferes
?
?
FSB will give Internet services 10 days to provide encryption keys
?