Facts
The Federal Court had to decide on an appeal by [A.] against the ruling of the Winterthur District Court, Coercive Measures Court, of 3 May 2022. The Winterthur/Unterland Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting a criminal investigation against [A.] for attempted bodily harm and other offenses. As part of this investigation, the Public Prosecutor's Office had a search of [A.] 's place of residence carried out, during which, among other things, business documents of his online shop "[B.] " as well as his mobile phone were seized and sealed at his request.
The Public Prosecutor's Office applied for the complete unsealing of the seized items. The Winterthur District Court, Coercive Measures Court, approved the application for unsealing and released the sealed items to the Public Prosecutor's Office for search and further use. [A.] lodged an appeal with the Federal Court and applied for the reversal of the contested decision and the dismissal of the Public Prosecutor's Office's application for unsealing.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appeal and came to the conclusion that the appeal is admissible, as the contested decision can cause a non-reparable disadvantage. The Court then examined the merits of the appeal and came to the conclusion that the lower court rightly assumed the existence of a sufficient suspicion of (attempted) simple bodily harm.
The Court also examined the proportionality of the ordered unsealing and came to the conclusion that the unsealing of the mobile phone is to be limited in time…