Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 4:39:08 GMT -5
The defense tried, without success, to apply the theory of the fruits of the poisoned tree
If a police officer perceives with his own eyes an event that happens inside a home, he is not violating the right to the inviolability of the home established in article 18 of the Spanish Constitution. Of course, he must be able to observe it without any device for recording or approximating the images. This is what the Supreme Court recalls in a ruling in which it rejects most of the grounds for an appeal, confirming the four and three year prison sentences to which several people were sentenced for a crime against public health.
The address is inviolable (article 18.2 CE) and no Email Data entry or registration can be made without the consent of the owner or without judicial authorization. In numerous rulings, including STC 22/1984, it is indicated that the home is that space in which the individual “lives without necessarily being subject to social uses and conventions and exercises his or her most intimate freedom.” Not only is the physical space an object of protection, “but also what is in it that emanates from the person and their private sphere.”
In this sense, article 588 of the Criminal Procedure Law affirms the nullity of photographs taken by the police inside a home without the required judicial authorization. In this case, the images captured by the agents of the garden attached to the home , which is considered a home and not a public space, are null and void. However, there is nothing to object, in terms of legality, to the observations of the home made by the police investigation team, on which the defense wanted to extend the annulment .
“The constitutional protection of the right proclaimed in section 2 of article 18 of the EC protects, both against the unauthorized intrusion of the intruder into the domestic setting, and with respect to the clandestine observation of what happens inside, if this is necessary. use a technical device for recording or approximating images. The State cannot enter without judicial authorization into the space of exclusion that each citizen draws in relation to third parties (...) and this prohibition is violated when, without judicial authorization and to overcome the obstacles inherent to the inspection task, an optical device is used. "which allows the images to be enlarged and bridge the distance between the observer and what is observed," can be read in the Supreme Court ruling.
If a police officer perceives with his own eyes an event that happens inside a home, he is not violating the right to the inviolability of the home established in article 18 of the Spanish Constitution. Of course, he must be able to observe it without any device for recording or approximating the images. This is what the Supreme Court recalls in a ruling in which it rejects most of the grounds for an appeal, confirming the four and three year prison sentences to which several people were sentenced for a crime against public health.
The address is inviolable (article 18.2 CE) and no Email Data entry or registration can be made without the consent of the owner or without judicial authorization. In numerous rulings, including STC 22/1984, it is indicated that the home is that space in which the individual “lives without necessarily being subject to social uses and conventions and exercises his or her most intimate freedom.” Not only is the physical space an object of protection, “but also what is in it that emanates from the person and their private sphere.”
In this sense, article 588 of the Criminal Procedure Law affirms the nullity of photographs taken by the police inside a home without the required judicial authorization. In this case, the images captured by the agents of the garden attached to the home , which is considered a home and not a public space, are null and void. However, there is nothing to object, in terms of legality, to the observations of the home made by the police investigation team, on which the defense wanted to extend the annulment .
“The constitutional protection of the right proclaimed in section 2 of article 18 of the EC protects, both against the unauthorized intrusion of the intruder into the domestic setting, and with respect to the clandestine observation of what happens inside, if this is necessary. use a technical device for recording or approximating images. The State cannot enter without judicial authorization into the space of exclusion that each citizen draws in relation to third parties (...) and this prohibition is violated when, without judicial authorization and to overcome the obstacles inherent to the inspection task, an optical device is used. "which allows the images to be enlarged and bridge the distance between the observer and what is observed," can be read in the Supreme Court ruling.