The role of constitutional courts in taming adverse impact of new technologies in the criminal proceedings

Michalina Marcia

doi:10.22197/rbdpp.v8i1.678

Authors

Michalina Marcia Uniwersytet Wrocławski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7872-8507

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v8i1.678

Keywords:

new technologies, constitutional courts, data retention, surveillance

Abstract

This article presents the impact of constitutional courts in shaping the fair trial standards in the context of new technologies application in the criminal proceedings. Surveillance measures based on the use of new technologies by law enforcement agencies are highly intrusive in nature and may violate not only the constitutional right to privacy, but also, in the author's opinion, guarantees of the fair trial and procedural rights of the suspect. The aim of the article is to indicate to what extent constitutional courts have contributed to establishing the procedural standards in the activities of gathering evidence using new technologies (regarding both content and metadata), as well as to present potential problems in this area that courts will have to face in the future.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Michalina Marcia, Uniwersytet Wrocławski

PhD student at the Chair of Constitutional Law (Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics, University of Wroclaw), Research Assistant at the Digital Justice Center.

References

ACT ON THE POLICE of 6 April 1990, Dziennik Ustaw, item 1882

ADAM, Lisanne, BARNS, Greg. Digital strip searches in Australia: A threat to the privilege against self-incrimination, Alternative Law Journal, V. 45, no. 3, p. 222–227, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969x20923073

AKTHER, Shajeda; NORDIN, Rohaida. An Analysis of Fair Trial Guarantees at Trial Stage under the ECHR, Law Review p. 211-234, 2015

ATTORNEY GENERAL. Motion of 12 November 2015 r., PG VIII TKw 41/14

BACHMAIER, Lorena. Exclusionary Rules of Evidence in Spain. In: THAMAN, Stephen (ed.). Truth versus Legality in a Comparative View, Heidelberg: Springer, p. 209–234, 2018

BACHMAIER WINTER, Lorena. Remote computer searches under Spanish Law: The proportionality principle and the protection of privacy. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, v. 129 no. 1, p. 205-231, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/zstw-2017-0008

BANASZAK, Bogusław. Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, Warszawa: C.H.Beck, p. 212, 2012

BARAK, Aharon. Proportionality. Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 472, 2006

BARKHUYSEN, Tom, EMMERIK, VAN, Michiel, JANSEN, Oswald, FEDOROVA, Masha. Right to a Fair Trial. In: DIJK, VAN, Pieter, HOOF, Van, Fried RIJN, VAN, Arjen, ZWAAK, Leo. Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intesentia, p. 637, 2018

BULGARIAN SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. Decision No 13627, 11 December 2008

BRADSHAW Robert. Deception and detection: the use of technology in assessing witness credibility, Arbitration International, v. 37, no. 3, p. 707-720, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiab007

BREMS, Eva. Conflicting human rights: an exploration in the context of the right to a fair trial in the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Human Rights Quarterly, v. 27, n. 1, p. 294-326, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2005.0003

CARNES, Brittany A. Face ID and Fingerprints: Modernizing Fifth Amendment Protections for Cell Phones, Loyola Law Review, v. 66, n.1, p. 183-210, 2020

CHOPRA, Pran. The Constitution and Supreme Court. Economic and Political Weekly, v. 39 no. 30, p. 3355–3359, 2004. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4415313

CHOUDHRY, Sujit (ed.). The Migration of Constitutional Ideals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND of 2nd April 1997, published in Dziennik Ustaw No. 78, item 483

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ROMANIA. Decision No 1258 of 8 October 2009

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. Judgment 253/2006 of 11 September 2006

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. Decision STC 114/184

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC. Decision of 22 March 2011, Pl. ÚS 24/10

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC. Decision of 22 December 2011, Pl. ÚS 24/11

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 11 February 1992 r., K 14/91

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 26 January 1993, U 10/92

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 17 October 1995, K 10/95

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 25 November 2003, K 37/02

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of May, 17 2004, SK 32/03

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of December, 12 2005 r., K 32/04

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 9 July 2009, SK 48/05

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 25 July 2013, P 56/11

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of April 30, 2014, K 23/11

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 5 June 2014 r., K 35/11

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 14 July 2015, SK 26/14

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Judgment of 4 November 2015, K 1/14

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF POLAND. Decision of June, 30 2021 r., K32/05

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Judgment of 8 April 2014, joined Cases C 293/12 and C 594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of 21 December 2016, joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15 Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and Others, EU:C:2016:970

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of October, 6 2020, La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C 511/18, C 512/18 i C 520/18, EU:C:2020:791

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of 6 October 2020, Case C-623/17 Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others, EU:C:2020:790

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment (Grand Chamber), 2 March 2021, C-746/18, Criminal proceedings against H. K., EU:C:2021:152

CZERNIAK, Dominika. Collection of location data in criminal proceedings – European (the EU and Strasbourg) standards. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 7, n. 1, p. 123-160, 2021. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.503

DEENER, David. Judicial Review in Modern Constitutional Systems. The American Political Science Review, v. 46 no, 4, 1079–1099, 1952. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952114

DE VRIES, Katja, BELLANOVA Rocco, DE HERT Paul, GUTWIRTH Serge. The German Constitutional Court Judgment on Data Retention: Proportionality Overrides Unlimited Surveillance (Doesn’t It?). In: GUTWIRTH Serge, POULLET Yves, DE HERT Paul, LEENES Ronald (eds) Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: an Element of Choice, p. 3-23, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0641-5_1

DIRECTIVE 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ L 105, Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/24/oj

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124, 136-37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

DIXON, Rosalind. Updating Constitutional Rules. The Supreme Court Review, no. 1, p. 319–346, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1086/653651

EUROJUST. Data retention regimes in Europe in light of the CJEU ruling of 21 December 2016 in Joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15 – Report, 2017. Available at: <https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2017/nov/eu-eurojust-data-retention-MS-report-10098-17.pdf> >. Accessed March 15, 2022

EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, adopted in Rome on 4th November 1950. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf >

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 8 February 1996, John Murray v. the United Kingdom (app. no. 18731/91)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 29 June 2006, Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (app. no. 54934/00)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 29 June 2007, O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom, (app. nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 4 December 2008, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom (app. nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 17 December 2009, B.B. v. France (app. no. 5335/06),

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 17 December 2009, Gardel v. France and M.B. v. France (app. no. 22115/06)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Judgment of 2 Sptember 2010, Uzun v. Germany (app. no. 35623/05)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 21 June 2011, Shimovolos v. Russia (app. no. 30194/09)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 3 July 2012, Robathin v. Austria (app. no. 30457/06)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 18 April 2013, M.K. v. France (app. no. 19522/09)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 18 September 2014, Brunet v. France (app. no. 21010/10)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 12 January 2016, Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary (app. no. 37138/14)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 30 May 2017, Trabajo Rueda v. Spain (app. no. 32600/12)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 22 June 2017, Aycaguer v. France, (app. no. 8806/12)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 13 February 2020, Gaughran v. the United Kingdom (app. no. 45245/15)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 25 May 2021, Centrum För Rättvisa v. Sweden (app. no. 35252/08)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 16 November 2021, Vasil Vasiliev v. Bulgaria, (app. no. 7610/15)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 14 October 2021, Lysusk v. Ukraine, (app. no. 72531/1)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Press Unit, Factsheet – new technologies, 2021. Available at: <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_new_technologies_eng.pdf> AccessedJanuary 9, 2022

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE. Opinion EESC 2018/02737, OJ C 367, 10.10.2018, p. 88–92. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_11314_2021_INIT&from=EN.

FARAHANY, Nita. Incriminating Thoughts. Stanford Law Review, v. 64 no. 2, p. 351–408, 2012

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Judgment of 7 April 1998, 2 BvR 1827/97 https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/1998/04/rk19980407_2bvr182797.html

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Judgment of the First Senate of 27 February 2008, 1 BvR 370/07, 1 BvR 595/07

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Judgment of the First Senate of 20 April 2016, 1 BvR 966/09, 1 BvR 1140/09

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Press release no 11/2010 of 2 March 2010

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, Luppino v Fisher (No 2) [2019] FCA 1100

FISCHER, Larissa BETTINA, Paul, VOIGT, TORSTEN, Voigt. Wahrheit unter dem Vergrößerungsglas. Vorstellungen von Subjekt und Technik in der Rechtsprechung zur Polygraphie, Zeitschrift für Soziologie v. 48, no. 5-6, p. 418 – 434, 2019

FUNDACJA PANOPTYKON. Telefoniczna Kopalnia Informacji. Przewodnik, p. 20. Available at: https://panoptykon.org/biblio/telefoniczna–kopalnia–informacji–przewodnik. Accessed: March 15, 2022

GARLICKI, Lech; WOJTYCZEK, Krzysztof. Komentarz do art. 31 Konstytucji. In: GARLICKI, Lech; ZUBIK, Marek (ed.). Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, t. II, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska, p. 69, 2016

GERSTEIN, Robert. Privacy and self-incrimination. In SCHOEMAN, Ferdinand David (ed.), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 245-264, 1984. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511625138.010,

GOLDMAN, Kara. Biometric passwords and the privilege against self-incrimination. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, v. 33, no. 1, p. 211-236, 2015

GWIRDWOYŃ, WEIGEND, Ewa, WIDACKI, Jan, WÓJCIKIEWICZ, Józef.

German Supreme Court’s alleged approval of polygraph examination in criminal proceedings, Prokuratura i Prawo, n. 7-8, 2009

HARRIS, David. The right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings as a human right, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, v. 16 n. 2, p. 352-378, 1967, https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/16.2.352

HERRERA, Adam. Biometric Passwords and the Fifth Amendment: How Technology Has Outgrown the Right to Be Free from Self-Incrimination, UCLA Law Review, v. 66 n. 3, p. .778-817, 2019

INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. Seo v. State, 109 N.E.3d 418, 425-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) 2018 WL 6565988 (Ind. Dec. 6, 2018)

JACKSON, Vicki. Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational Era, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 60, 2010

JUSZCZAK, Adam, SASON, Elisa. Recalibrating Data Retention in the EU. The Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU on Data Retention – Is this the End or is this the Beginning? EUCRIM v. 4, p. 238 – 266, 2021, https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2021-020

KUMM, Mattias. Constitutional Rights as Principles, International Journal of Constitutional Law v. 2, p. 595, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/2.3.574

LACH, Arkadiusz. Rzetelne postępowanie dowodowe w sprawach karnych w świetle orzecznictwa strasburskiego, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, p. 112-158, 2019

LOFTUS, Bethan. Normalizing covert surveillance: the subterranean world of policing, The British Journal of Sociology, p. 2070-2091, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12651

LUBER, Bruce, FISHER, Carl, APPELBAUM, Paul, PLOESSER, Marcus, LISANBY, Sarah. Non-invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: Scientific challenges and ethical consequences. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, no. 27, p. 191-208, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.860

MAHONEY, Paul. Right to a fair trial in criminal matters under Article 6 ECHR. Judicial Studies Institute Journal, v. 4, n. 2, p. 107-129, 2004

MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT. Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, 11 N.E.3d 605, 614-15 (Mass. 2014)

MARAS, Marie-Helen. From targeted to mass surveillance: is the EU Data Retention Directive a necessary measure or an unjustiﬁed threat to privacy?. In GOOLD, Benjamin J., NEYLAND, Daniel (eds). New Directions in Surveillance and Privacy, Willan, 2009. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843927266

MITROU, Lilian. The impact of communications data retention on fundamental rights and democracy – the case of the EU Data Retention Directive. In HAGGERTY, Kevin, SAMATAS, Minas Samatas (eds). Surveillance and Democracy, New York: Routledge, 2010

OFFICE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION. Report of June 2021. Available at: <https://www.uke.gov.pl/download/gfx/uke/pl/defaultaktualnosci/36/391/10/raport_o_stanie_rynku_telekomunikacyjnego_w_polsce_w_2020_roku_.pdf>. Access on March 15, 2022

OLBER, Paweł. Remote Search of IT System in Polish Legislation and Its Importance in Fight Against Cybercrime, Internal Security, v. 11, n. 2, p. 141-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.8288

OMBUDSMAN OF POLAND. Motion of 4 December 2015 r., II.511.84.2015.KSz

PEW RESEARCH CENTER FO INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY. Mobile Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center for Internet and Technology of February 5, 2018. Available at: <https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile>. Access on March 15, 2022QUEENSLAND COURT OF APPEAL. Wassmuth v Commissioner of Police [2018] QCA 290

REGULATION (EU – proposal) of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters, COM/2018/225 final - 2018/0108 (COD)

RANGAVIZ, David. Compelled decryption & state constitutional protection against self-incrimination. American Criminal Law Review, v. 57, no. 1, p. 157-206, 2020

RECHTBANK NOORD-HOLLAND [District Court of North-Holland, the Netherlands]. Judgment of 25 January 2019, NJFS 15/168454-18

REDMAYNE, Mike. Rethinking the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 27, no. 2, p. 209–232, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql001

ROCHON, Mark, SCHMITT, Andy, HERBERT, Ian. Is It Time to Revisit the Corporate Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination? The Champion, p. 50 – 59, 2019

ROJSZCZAK, Marcin. National Security and Retention of Telecommunications Data in Light of Recent Case Law of the European Courts. European Constitutional Law Review, p. 607-635, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/S157401962100035

ROJSZCZAK, Marcin. Ochrona prywatności w cyberprzestrzeni z uwzględnieniem zagrożeń wynikających z nowych technik przetwarzania informacji, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2019

SKRĘTOWICZ, Edward. Z problematyki rzetelnego procesu karnego. In: SKORUPKA, Jerzy (ed.). Rzetelny proces karny. Księga jubileuszowa Profesor Zofi i Świdy, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska, p. 23, 2009,

STOYKOVA, Radina, Digital evidence: Unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence, Computer Law & Security Review, v. 42, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575

ŚLEDZIŃSKA SIMON, Anna. Analiza proporcjonalności ograniczeń konstytucyjnych praw i wolności. Teoria i praktyka, p. 24, 2019. https://doi.org/10.34616/23.19.020

TAYLOR, Mark. The EU Data Retention Directive Computer Law & Security Review, v. 22 p. 309-312, 2006. https://doi.org./10.1016/j.clsr.2006.05.005

TULEJA, Piotr. Komentarz do art. 31 Konstytucji. In: TULEJA, Piotr (ed.). Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska, p. 114.119, 2019.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE ARMED FORCES, United States v. Mitchell H, 76 M.J. 413,424-25 & n.5 (C.A.A.F. 2017)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1349 (11th Cir. 2012)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, United States v. Apple MacPro Computer, 851 F.3d 238, 248 & n.7 (3d Cir. 2017 138 S. Ct. 1988 (2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO, United States v. Fricosu, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1237 (D. Colo. 2012)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. United States v. Kirschner, 823 F. Supp. 2d 665 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, United States v. Spencer, No. 17-cr-00259-CRB-1, 2018 WL 1964588, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018)

VAINIO, Niklas, MIETTINEN, Samuli. Telecommunications data retention after Digital Rights Ireland: legislative and judicial reactions in the Member States, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, v. 23, no. 3, p. 290–309, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eav010

VERBRUGGEN, Frank; CONINGS, Charlotte. After zigzagging between extremes, finally common sense? Will Belgium return to reasonable rules on illegally obtained evidence? Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 7, n. 1, p. 273-310, 2021. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.500

VICTORIAN COURT OF APPEAL, McElroy v The Queen; Wallace v The Queen [2018] VSCA 126, 55 VR 450

VITKAUSAS, Dovydas; DIKOV, Grigoriy. Protecting the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. Available at: <https://edoc.coe.int/en/module/ec_addformat/download?cle=c82b013313066e0702d58dc70db033ca&k=2fc0fa200f64659df501f62a8386baad>. Accessed March 23, 2022

WILIŃSKI, Paweł. Proces karny w świetle Konstytucji, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska, p. 174-177, 2011

WILIŃSKI, Paweł. Zasada prawa do obrony w polskim procesie karnym, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska, p. 354-359, 2006

WÓJTOWICZ, Krzysztof. Zasada proporcjonalności jako wyznacznik konstytucyjności norm. In: ZUBIK, Marek (ed.). Księga XX-lecia orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, Warsaw: Biuro Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, p. 265– 278, 2006

ZUBIK, Marek; PODKOWIK, Jan; RYBSKI, Robert. European Constitutional Courts towards Data Retention Laws, Cham: Springer, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57189-4