Facts
In a criminal case against [A.] , the public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Zug conducted a house search of [A.] and secured documents, a computer, and an external hard drive. [A.] then filed a request for sealing of the seized documents and electronic files. Subsequently, a joint inspection of the sealed records and items by [A.] and the public prosecutor's office took place. It was agreed that the correspondence with the defence counsel and the correspondence with [A.] 's Czech lawyers would remain sealed, while the rest would be released for search. After the search of the released documents, the public prosecutor's office intended to formally seize certain items as evidence. [A.] filed an appeal against this. The High Court of the Canton of Zug dismissed the appeals. [A.] appealed against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that the public prosecutor's office was allowed to search the temporarily secured records and items after the unsealing procedure and then formally seize them. [A.] had expressly consented to the unsealing and search of…