Facts
In this case, it was about the use of chance findings from telephone surveillance against a co-accused, in order to then order surveillance of the complainant. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen has been conducting a criminal investigation against an internationally active drug trafficking ring since spring 2012. Based on a chance finding from the telephone surveillance against a co-accused, the Public Prosecutor's Office extended the investigation to the complainant on September 4, 2012, accusing him of participating in qualified offenses against the Narcotics Act. Thereupon, the Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the (active) secret surveillance of a telephone connection or mobile telephone connection of the complainant on the same day.
The complainant filed a complaint against the surveillance measures (including the use of chance findings and subsequent metadata collection). The Indictment Chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the complaint by decision of November 27, 2013, insofar as it entered into it. Thereupon, the complainant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court on February 14, 2014.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the Public Prosecutor's Office can monitor the postal and telecommunications traffic of the accused person and (in certain cases) of third parties if there is a strong suspicion that an offense listed in Art. 269 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been committed. Furthermore, the severity of the offense must justify the surveillance, and the previous investigative actions must have been unsuccessful or it must be shown that the investigations would otherwise be hopeless or…