Facts
On March 6, 2018, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Uri opened criminal proceedings against [A.] on suspicion of qualified violation of the Narcotics Act. Subsequently, the Coercive Measures Court of Uri approved the retroactive surveillance of [A.] 's mobile phone connection (metadata collection), the real-time surveillance of this mobile phone connection, the acoustic surveillance of his apartment, and the technical surveillance of two passenger vehicles for the purpose of location identification. In addition, the Public Prosecutor's Office ordered and extended the surveillance of [A.] .
On January 7, 2019, the police arrested [A.] and conducted house searches, during which large quantities of drugs and high cash amounts were seized.
[A.] filed three appeals against the approval and extension of the surveillance measures. The single judge of the Higher Court dismissed the appeals.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court considers the appeal to be unfounded. It finds that there was a sufficient legal basis for the surveillance of the apartment with technical surveillance devices, the location identification of the passenger vehicles, and the extension of the real-time surveillance of the mobile phone connection, and that the proportionality requirements were met. The authorities were allowed to postpone…