Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of [L.] is conducting a criminal investigation against [A.] for a homicide offense. On xx.xx.xxxx, the Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the retroactive collection of metadata from six telephone connections (from xx.xx.xxxx to xx.xx.xxxx). On the same day, the Public Prosecutor's Office's request for authorization of the surveillance measures was partially approved by the Compulsory Measures Court of Canton [M.] ; the request was approved for three telephone connections, but rejected for three other connections, including the connections of the deceased victim.
The Public Prosecutor's Office appealed the rejected part of the decision to the Federal Supreme Court. It requested the (partial) annulment of the contested decision and the approval of all the surveillance measures ordered on xx.xx.xxxx.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the Public Prosecutor's Office can monitor the postal and telecommunications traffic of the accused person and (in the cases of Art. 270 lit. b CrimPC) of third parties if there is a strong suspicion that an offense listed in Art. 269 para. 2 CrimPC has been committed. Furthermore, the severity of the offense must justify the surveillance, and the previous investigative actions must have been unsuccessful or the investigations otherwise hopeless or disproportionately difficult.
The Federal Supreme Court considers the retroactive collection of telecommunications metadata of the deceased victim to be admissible. While the provisions of Art. 270 et seq. CrimPC, which aim to protect the privacy of third parties, must also be taken into account in investigative measures under Art. 273…