Abstract

Modern criminal investigations increasingly rely on evidence that is not in a tangible format and can no longer be assumed to be located close to the locus delicti or the perpetrator. This article focuses on the notification requirement embedded into the legal regimes regulating one of the available investigative measures employed to access data stored in digital devices – remote search and seizure. The article will first analyse whether there is an obligation under international law to notify the other state about such a transborder investigative measure. Then we will compare the notification requirements for remote search and seizure in three countries’ domestic law: in Estonia, the Netherlands and the United States. Finally, we will draw conclusions on the principal challenges related to the implementation of the notification requirement under the domestic regulation. These involve balancing, on the one hand, the difficulties in identifying the location and the identity of the possible suspect and, on the other hand, the need to provide the involved individuals’ protection as guaranteed by the principles of fair trial and effective remedy.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.