A autoridade competente para determinar buscas e apreensões em perspectiva comparada: pela necessidade de controle judicial

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i3.412

Palavras-chave:

busca e apreensão, mandado, investigação criminal, Ministério Público, poderes da promotoria.

Resumo

Buscas e apreensões são exemplos de meios de investigação dirigidos à descoberta de elementos probatórios, e irregularidades na sua condução de modo legal e razoável acarretam impacto direto na admissibilidade da prova durante o juízo. Contudo, buscas e apreensões por sua natureza também refletem significativamente em intervenções nos direitos individuais, caracterizando tais medidas como coercitivas e com risco de violações à privacidade e à dignidade da pessoa. Por esse motivo, a regulamentação das buscas e apreensões deve se dar de um modo compatível com a necessidade de efetividade das investigações e com uma proteção adequada contra atos abusivos. Uma dessas garantias é determinada pela definição da autoridade competente para ordenar as buscas e apreensões e a sua capacidade de proteger os direitos individuais. Enquanto é uma regra em alguns países (ex. EUA e Alemanha) que a expedição de um mandado de busca e apreensão somente pode ser determinada pelo juízo, em outros (ex. Polônia e Itália) isso pode ser feito pelo Ministério Público. Entretanto, como a maioria das buscas e apreensões são realizadas sem mandado, é necessário analisar em paralelo se medidas sem mandado deveriam ser relegadas à discricionariedade da autoridade executante ou se deveriam ser submetidas a rigoroso controle por outra autoridade. Isso será feito com o objetivo de identificar soluções para assegurar a melhor proteção à pessoa contra buscas e apreensões abusivas e desproporcionais. 

Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.

Biografia do Autor

  • Karolina Kremens, University of Wroclaw
    https://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/user/15630

Referências

AMODIO, Ennio; SELVAGGI, Eugenio. An Accusatorial System in a Civil Law Country: The 1988 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. Temple Law Review, n. 62, 1989.

BRADLEY, Craig. The Exclusionary Rule in Germany. Harvard Law Review, n. 96, 1983.

CAIANIELLO, Michele. The Italian Public Prosecutor: An Inquisitorial Figure in Adversarial Proceedings. In: LUNA, Erik; WADE, Marianne (eds.). The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

CAIANIELLO, Michele. Increasing Discretionary Prosecutor’s Powers: The Pivotal Role of the Italian Prosecutor in the Pretrial Investigation Phase. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.013.122

COLB, Sherry F. Probabilities in Probable Cause and Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms. Law and Contemporary Problems, n. 73, 2010.

DI AMATO, Astolfo. Criminal Law in Italy. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2013.

DI FEDERICO, Giuseppe. Prosecutorial Independence and the Democratic Requirement of Accountability in Italy: Analysis of a Deviant Case in a Comparative Perspective. British Journal of Criminology, n. 38, 1998.

DRESSLER, Joshua; THOMAS III, George. Criminal Procedure. Principles, Policies and Perspectives. St Paul: West Academic, 2017.

ELSNER, Beatrix; PETERS, Julia. The Prosecution Service Function within the German Criminal Justice System. In: JEHLE, Jörg-Martin; WADE, Marianne (eds.). Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems. The Rise of Prosecutorial Power Across Europe. Heidelberg: Springer, 2010.

FABRI, Marco. Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecution Reform in Italy: A Flash Back. International Journal for Court Administration, n.10, 2008.

FRASE, Richard; WEIGEND, Thomas. German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, n. 18, 1995.

GILLIÉRON, Gwladys. Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe. Cham: Springer, 2014.

GRAMCKOW, Heike. Prosecutor Organization and Operations in the United States. In: Promoting Prosecutorial Accountability, Independence and Effectiveness. Sofia: Open Society Institute Sofia, 2008.

GRANDE, Elisabetta. Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance. American Journal of Comparative Law, n. 48, 2000.

GRAY, David. Fourth Amendment Remedies as Rights: The Warrant Requirement. Boston University Law Review, n. 96, 2016.

GROCHOWSKI, Jacek. Przeszukanie w procesie karnym jako instytucja wyznaczająca granice konstytucyjnych praw osobistych. Problemy Prawa Karnego, n. 17, 1991.

ILLUMINATI, Giulio. The Role of the Public Prosecutor in the Italian System. In: TAK, Peter J.P. (ed.). Tasks and Powers of the Prosecution Services in the EU Member States. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2004.

ILLUMINATI, Giulio. The Frustrated Turn to Adversarial Procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988). Washington University Global Studies Law Review, n. 4, 2005.

KUHNE, Heinz-Heinrich. Germany. In: VAN DEN WYNGAERT, Christine (ed.). Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community. London: Butterworths, 1993.

KOPER, Radosław. Przeszukanie w wypadkach niecierpiących zwłoki. Prokuratura i Prawo, n. 11–12, 2014.

KREMENS, Karolina. The limits of interference with the right to privacy and property in criminal proceedings. In: SKORUPKA, Jerzy (ed.). The model of acceptable interference with the rights and freedoms of an individual in criminal process. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2019.

LASAGNI, Giulia. Tackling phone searches in Italy and the United States: Proposals for a technological rethinking of procedural rights and freedoms. New Journal of European Criminal Law, n. 9, 2018.

MONTANA, Ricardo. Adversarialism in Italy: Using the Concept of Legal Culture to Understand Resistance to Legal Modifications and Its Consequences. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, n. 20, 2012.

NEUBAUER, David W.; FRADELLA, Henry F. America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Boston: Cengage, 2017.

NOWAK, Celina; STEINBORN, Sławomir. Poland. En: LIGETI, Katalin (eds.). Toward a Prosecutor of the European Union, Volume 1: A Comparative Analysis. London: Hart Publishing, 2013.

PANZAVOLTA, Michele. Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System. North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, n. 30, 2004.

PERRODET, Antoinette. The Italian System. In: DELMAS-MARTY, Mireille; SPENCER, John R (eds.). European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

RUGGIERI, Francesca; MARCOLINI, Stefano. Italy. In: LIGETI, Katalin (ed.). Toward a Prosecutor of the European Union, Volume 1: A Comparative Analysis. London: Hart Publishing, 2013.

SAKOWICZ, Andrzej. Poszanowanie życia prywatnego w postępowaniu karnym. Jurysta, n. 6, 2000.

SCACCIANOCE, Caterina. The principle of mandatory prosecution and the independence of public prosecutors in the Italian Criminal Justice System. ReAIDP/e-RIAPL A-01, 2010.

SCHEB, John M; SCHEB, John M II. Criminal Procedure. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1999.

SIEGISMUND, Eberhard. The Public Prosecution Office in Germany: Legal Status, Function and Organization. Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in Criminal Justice. The 120th International Senior Seminar, 2003. Available at: <https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No60/No60_10VE_Siegismund2.pdf>. Access on: 3 September 2020.

SKORUPKA, Jerzy. Konstytucyjne i konwencyjne granice przeszukania w postępowaniu karnym (cz. I). Palestra, v. 9-10, 2007.

SKORUPKA, Jerzy. Konstytucyjne i konwencyjne granice przeszukania w postępowaniu karnym (cz. II). Palestra, n. 11-12, 2007.

SKORUPKA, Jerzy. Komentarz do art. 220 k.p.k. En: SKORUPKA, Jerzy (ed.), Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz. Warszawa: CH Beck, 2018.

STEINBORN, Sławomir. Problem organu uprawnionego do stosowania przeszukania w toku procesu karnego w świetle unormowań konstytucyjnych i prawnomiędzynarodowych. Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, n. 19, 2008.

TRENDAFILOVA, Ekaterina; RÓTH, Werner. Report on the Public Prosecution Service in Germany. In: Promoting Prosecutorial Accountability, Independence and Effectiveness. Sofia: Open Society Institute Sofia, 2008.

WEIGEND, Thomas. The Prosecution Service in the German Administration of Criminal Justice. In: TAK, Peter J.P. (ed.). Tasks and Powers of the Prosecution Services in the EU Member States. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2004.

WEIGEND, Thomas; SALDITT, Franz. The Investigative Stage of the Criminal Process in Germany. In: CAPE, Ed; HODGSON, Jacqueline; PRAKKEN, Ties; SPRONKEN, Taru (eds.). Suspects in Europe. Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2007.

WEIGEND, Thomas. Germany. In: LIGETI, Katalin (ed.). Toward a Prosecutor of the European Union, Volume 1: A Comparative Analysis. London: Hart Publishing, 2013.

ZIĘBA-ZAŁUCKA, Hanna. Prokuratura w nowej ustawie z 2016 roku. Eksperyment z podległością władzy wykonawczej. Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego, n. 33, 2016.

ZWEIGERT, Konrad, KÖTZ, Hein. Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2011.

Publicado

27.10.2020

Edição

Seção

Teoria da Prova Penal

Como Citar

Kremens, K. (2020). A autoridade competente para determinar buscas e apreensões em perspectiva comparada: pela necessidade de controle judicial. Revista Brasileira De Direito Processual Penal, 6(3), 1585-1626. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i3.412