The interception is the act by which a surprise party takes note of a conversation or a confidential communication relating also to computer systems and data, running from other parties. The Criminal Section VI of the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 29 March 2005, no. 12189 defines interception as the occult and contextual catchment of a communication or conversation between two or more parties acting with the intention to exclude others objectively and in a manner suitable for the purpose, carried out by the same person unconnected with the technical tools of perception such as to undermine the precautions ordinarily designed to protect its confidential nature. However, does not constitute interception activities and does not require any authorization under Art. 267 cpp recording of an interview carried out clandestinely by one of the participants in it, it is a mere form of storage phonic of a historical fact, which the author participates.
Prerequisite to arrange the wiretaps is, therefore, the presence of serious evidence of guilt and that the commission of a crime. The evidence which, pursuant to art. 267, paragraph 1, Code of Criminal Procedure constitute a prerequisite for the use of wiretaps pertaining to the existence of the crime and not the culpability of a particular subject. The function of the interception is precisely to identify the person responsible for a crime, starting from an offense committed or being consumed.
The intercepts may relate to the acquisition of knowledge of telecommunications telephone (using the tool of your phone or other forms of transmission), as well as talks between present knowledge of at least one of the interested parties (ie eavesdropping). In the Code of Criminal Procedure were introduced, pursuant to art. 266bis (L.547/1993), but the intercepts concerning the flow of communication between electronic systems or computer.
The interception of conversations or communications, in accordance with Article 266 of the Criminal Procedure Code, shall be eligible only for certain categories of offenses identified for legal asset protected by them or the amount of the penalty. In addition, it allowed the interception when you are making in order to intentional crimes for which there is a penalty higher than a maximum of five years and other specific crimes, such as the telephone threats, wear, child pornography ( see art. 13, l. 6.2.2006, no. 38 - Provisions relating to the fight against sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, including through the Internet), the illegal financial activity, crimes relating to drugs or psychotropic substances, offenses relating to weapons and explosive substances etc. ...
To be able to proceed with wiretapping authorization is required the judge for preliminary investigations, upon reasoned request (1) of the Public Prosecutor. This authorization is given by the magistrate to the PM by reasoned decree (2) :
- If you are serious evidence of offense, or evidence and clear that prove not the guilt of the person against whom the interception is carried out, but only the commission of the offense. They are believed to be serious all the clues consistent and resistant to the objections and, therefore, reliable, convincing;
- If the interception is absolutely essential for the continuation of the investigations that would otherwise be blocked;
- If there are precise and consistent evidence of a crime, that is not generic and not susceptible to different interpretations or misunderstandings not among them.
However, based on art. 103 5th paragraph of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by art. 1 Law of 7 December 2000, n. 397, is not allowed to intercept conversations or communications relating to the defenders, the licensed private investigators and agents in relation to the proceedings, technical advisers and their assistants, or those between them and the people they assisted. You have to specify that Article. 103, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, prohibits the interception of conversations or communications, defense, since it is designed to ensure the exercise of the defense. This right applies, however, only to the conversations or communications relating to the affairs in which the lawyers pursue their defensive activity, and does not extend, so the conversations that integrate themselves offense (eg, a lawyer had advised his client of the initiatives taken by the police, giving advice to his client on how to avoid capture and thereby committing the offense of aiding and abetting).
The decree by which the court shall authorize the interception following the decree by which the prosecutor has that the underlying transactions could begin, establishing the length of time and the concrete ways. In the duration, the legislator provides that the same can not be more than fifteen days, with extensions by the magistrate for successive periods of fifteen more days, but for the offenses of organized crime, the transaction may be longer than forty days with extension of twenty days for subsequent periods. Instead, in cases of urgency, but only with reference to the offenses of organized crime can provide for the provision of interception directly with the prosecutor reasoned decree, subject to validation by the court, in the very brief terms of paragraph 2 of art. 267 Code of Criminal Procedure
At this point, we must say that the intercepted communications are recorded and operations shall be documented (art. 268 CCP). As a rule, the interception must take place through facilities located at the offices of the Public Prosecutor. However, only in very exceptional cases, urgent and unpredictable the prosecutor may decide to resort to external plants. The "urgent cases" that enable the prosecutor to issue the decree of interception of conversations or communications in accordance with art. 267, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Procedure Code shall include, as a rule, the "exceptional reasons of urgency" that legitimize, pursuant to art. 268, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code, the execution of operations systems supplied by the judicial police, if they are insufficient or unsuitable ones installed at the Prosecutor's Office.
According to the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure interceptions must be recorded and the related transactions shall be prepared report, which is transcribed, even in summary form, the contents of the intercepted communications. Subsequently, the minutes and records shall be immediately transmitted to the public prosecutor and shall be deposited in the office (along with various decrees) within five days of the conclusion of operations, for the time fixed by the prosecution unless the court deems it necessary to extend. The transcripts or so prints are included in the dossier for the trial (Article 268, paragraph 7 ° cpp). So, the minutes and records shall be kept in full at the prosecutor who ordered the interception until the judgment is no longer subject to appeal (Article 269 CCP). Instead, the documents relating to the interception can not be used (Article 271 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code) must be destroyed on the orders of the court.
Regarding the use of the results of interceptions, one must say that this is prohibited in proceedings other than those in which the intercepts were placed, unless it is essential for the investigation of the crimes for which the arrest is mandatory in flagrante delicto. In the latter case, the minutes and records of the wiretaps are filed with the competent authority for the different proceedings.
What they started with was a cell phone number, the number with which she exchanged messages between 8 and 9 p.m. on the 1st. Assuming an unregistered phone, they had some work to do tie that number up with Patrick. But I assume that would be pretty easily done. Bug the phone and listen to his conversations might be enough, checking out people he was in telephone contact with and simply asking one of them (also easily done). Then, by all means, bug his bar and tail the guy either or both of which they may well have done.
)
