Facts
The managing director [A.] of the Dancing [B.] nightclub in the canton of Lucerne was criminally investigated in May 1995 on suspicion of promoting prostitution and other offenses. In this proceeding, four telephone connections in the Dancing [B.] were tapped from June to October 1995. During this, conversations of the lawyer X., the brother-in-law of [A.], were accidentally recorded. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were opened against X. for money laundering and incitement to perjury.
The Criminal and Indictment Commission (KAK) of the Lucerne High Court admitted the wiretap transcripts as evidence in the criminal proceedings against X. X. then filed a constitutional appeal for violation of the telephone confidentiality.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that chance findings from lawful telephone surveillance may generally be used as evidence against the intercepted conversation partner, if the requirements for telephone surveillance would also have been met with regard to this conversation partner.
The professional secrecy does not protect professional confidants to the extent that they would be exempt from any telephone surveillance. If the professional…