The Notification Requirement in Transborder Remote Search and Seizure: Domestic and International Law Perspectives

Anna-Maria Osula, Mark Zoetekouw

Abstract

Modern criminal investigations increasingly rely on evidence that is not in a tangible format and can no longer be assumed to be located close to the locus delicti or the perpetrator. This article focuses on the notification requirement embedded into the legal regimes regulating one of the available investigative measures employed to access data stored in digital devices – remote search and seizure. The article will first analyse whether there is an obligation under international law to notify the other state about such a transborder investigative measure. Then we will compare the notification requirements for remote search and seizure in three countries’ domestic law: in Estonia, the Netherlands and the United States. Finally, we will draw conclusions on the principal challenges related to the implementation of the notification requirement under the domestic regulation. These involve balancing, on the one hand, the difficulties in identifying the location and the identity of the possible suspect and, on the other hand, the need to provide the involved individuals’ protection as guaranteed by the principles of fair trial and effective remedy.

Keywords

Remote Search and Seizure, Notification, Fair Trial, Effective Remedy, Law Enforcement

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

[1] Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure - April 2014, United States Courts. Available from: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/agenda- books/advisory-committee-rules-criminal-procedure-april-2014 [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[2] Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure - May 2015, United States Courts. Available from: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/agenda-books/advisory-committee-rules-criminal-procedure-may-2015 [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[3] American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Comment on the Proposed Amendment to Rule 41 Concerning Remote Searches of Electronic Storage Media (2014) p. 15. Available from: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclu_comments_on_rule_41.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[4] Hof van Beroep Brussel 26-06-2008, vol. 6, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht: jurisprudentie, nieuwe wetgeving en doctrine voor de praktijk, 2008, 26th june, p. 467.

[5] Code d’Instruction Criminelle (Belgium Code of Criminal Procedure), Livre Premier, Belgium. In France.

[6] Council of Europe (2001) Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185). Available from: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContentdocumentId=09000016800cce5b [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[7] Council of Europe (2012) Transborder Access and Jurisdiction: What Are the Options? Available from: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContentdocumentId=09000016802e79e8 [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[8] Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, ETS No. 185.

[9] Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.

[10] Council of Europe, Recommendation R(95) 13.

[11] Daskal, J. (2016) Rule 41 Has Been Updated: What’s Needed Next [Online] Just Security. Available from: https://www.justsecurity.org/35136/rule-41-updated-needed/ [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[12] Eerste Kamer (2015/2016), Kamerstukken I 2015/2016, 34372, A p. 5. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-34372-A.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[13] Eerste Kamer, afdeling Inhoudelijke Ondersteuning en de unit Communicatie & Protocol. Available from: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/34372_computercriminaliteit_iii [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[14] Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus (Constitution of the Republic of Estonia), RT 1992, 26, 349; RT I, 15. 5. 2015, 2. Estonia: Riigi Teataja. In Estonian.

[15] Estonia, Justiitsministeerium, Kriminaalmenetlusõiguse revisjoni lähteülesanne (Initial Task of the Revision of the Law of Criminal Procedure), 2015. Available from: http://www.just.ee/sites/www.just.ee/files/kriminaalmenetluse_revisjoni_lahteulesanne.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[16] Ginter, J. et al (2013) Analüüs isikute põhiõiguste tagamisest ja eeluurimise kiirusest kriminaalmenetluses (Analysis of Ensuring Fundamental Rights and the Speed of Preliminary Investigation in Criminal Procedure). Available from: http://www.kriminaalpoliitika.ee/en/analuus-isikute-pohioiguste-tagamisest-ja eeluurimise-kiirusest-kriminaalmenetluses [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[17] Goldsmith, J. (2001) The Internet and the Legitimacy of Remote Cross-Border Searches. University of Chicago Law School, Chicago Unbound. Available from: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1316&contextpublic_law_and_legal_theory [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[18] Grondwet (The Dutch Constitution), the Netherlands. In Dutch.

[19] Habbo Hotel (2009), Rechtbank Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2009:BH9789.

[20] Interview with Mr Geert Schoorens, Federal Prosecutor’s Office of Belgium, 2015.

[21] Interview with Mr Oskar Gross, Police and Border Guard Board, 2017.

[22] Interview with Mr Robert Laid, Estonian Assistant Prosecutor, 2015.

[23] Interview with Ms Eneli Laurits, Estonian Public Prosecutor, 2015.

[24] Kennis- en exploitatiecentrum Officiële Overheidspublicaties, Wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht en het Wetboek van Strafvordering in verband met de verbetering en versterking van de opsporing en vervolging van computercriminaliteit (Computercriminaliteit III). Available from: https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/computercriminaliteit/document/727 [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[25] Kergandberg, E. and Pikamäe, P. (2012) Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik: kommenteeritud väljaanne (Code of Criminal Procedure: Commented Edition). Tallinn: Juura.

[26] Koops, B.-J. and Goodwin, M. (2014) Cyberspace, the Cloud, and Cross-Border Criminal Investigation. Tilburg University, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, WODC. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=2698263 [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[27] Kriminaalmenetlusseadustik (Code of Criminal Procedure), RT I 2003, 27, 166; RT I, 31. 12. 2016, 46. Estonia: Riigi Teataja. In Estonian.

[28] Lõhmus, U. (2014) Põhiõigused kriminaalmenetluses (Fundamental Rights in Criminal Procedure). 2nd ed. Tallinn: Juura.

[29] Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, Memorie van Toelichting: Vaststellingswet Boek 2 van het nieuwe Wetboek van Strafvordering: Het opsporingsonderzoek. (2017) Available from: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2017/02/07/memorie-van- toelichting-vaststellingswet-boek-2-van-het-nieuwe-wetboek-van-strafvordering-het-opsporingsonderzoek[Accessed 8 March 2017].

[30] New Zealand and Law Commission (2007) Search and Surveillance Powers. Wellington. Available from: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/ projectAvailable Formats/NZLC%20R97.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[31] Osula, A.-M. (2015) Transborder Access and Territorial Sovereignty. Computer Law
& Security Review, 31(6).

[32] Osula, A.-M. (2016) Remote Search and Seizure in Domestic Criminal Procedure: Estonian Case Study. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 24(4).

[33] Osula, A.-M. (2017) Remote Search and Seizure of Extraterritorial Data. University of Tartu Press.

[34] Pilkington, E. (2014) FBI Demands New Powers to Hack into Computers and Carry out Surveillance. [Online] The Guardian Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/29/fbi-powers-hacking-computers-surveillance [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[35] Reitman, R. (2016) With Rule 41, Little-Known Committee Proposes to Grant New Hacking Powers to the Government, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Available from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rule-41-little-known-committee-proposes-grant- new-hacking-powers-government [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[36] Rule 41 Coalition Letter (2016). Available from: https://noglobalwarrants.org/assets/Rule41CoalitionLetter.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[37] Runescape (2012), Hoge Raad, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BQ9251.

[38] Svantesson, D. (2016) Preliminary Report: Law Enforcement Cross-Border Acces to Data, pp. 4-5, 9. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2874238 [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[39] The Wet Openbaarheid Bestuur (Governance Transparency Act), the Netherlands. In Dutch.

[40] Thompson II, R. (2016) Digital Searches and Seizures: Overview of Proposed Amendments to Rule 41 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Congressional Research Service. Available from: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44547.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[41] Tor Project Blog (2016) Day of Action: Stop the Changes to Rule 41. Available from:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/day-action-stop-changes-rule-41 [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[42] Tweede Kamer (2004/2005), Kamerstukken II 2004/2005, 26 671, nr. 10. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-26671-10.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[43] Tweede Kamer (2004/2005), Kamerstukken II 2015/2016 Kamerstukken II 2015/2016, 34372, 4. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-34372-4.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017]

[44] Tweede Kamer (2004/2005), Kamerstukken II 2015/2016 Kamerstukken II 2015/2016, 34372, 34. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-34372-17.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[45] Tweede Kamer (2004/2005), Kamerstukken II 2015/2016, Handelingen II, 2015/2016, 34372, 34. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-34372-26.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[46] Tweede Kamer (2015/2016), Handelingen II 2015/2016, 34372, 34. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/h-tk-20162017-34-26.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[47] Tweede Kamer (2015/2016), Kamerstukken II 2015/2016, 34372, 34. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-34372-25.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[48] Tweede Kamer, (1998/1999), Kamerstukken II 1998/1999, 26671, 3. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-26671-3.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[49] Tweede Kamer (2003/2004), Kamerstukken II 2003/2004, 29441, 3. Available from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-29441-3.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[50] United States Courts (2016) Current Rules of Practice & Procedure, Criminal Rules 4, 41, and 45, Redline of Amended Rules, Including Committee Notes. Available from: http://www.uscourts.gov/file/21315/ download [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[51] United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451,1456 (9th Cir. 1986).

[52] US Government’s comments on extraterritoriality at United States Department of Justice (2013) Mythili Raman Letter to Advisory Committee on the Criminal Rules. Available from: http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Raman-letter-to-committee-.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2017].

[53] Wetboek van Strafrecht (Dutch Criminal Code), the Netherlands. In Dutch.

[54] Wetboek van Strafvordering (Dutch Criminal Procedure Code), the Netherlands. In Dutch.

[55] Wetboek van Strafvordering, the Netherlands. In Dutch.

[56] Zoetekouw, M. (2016) Ignorantia Terrae Non Excusat. Available from: https://english.eu2016.nl/documents/publications/2016/03/7/c-mzoetekouw---ignorantia-terrae-non- excusat---discussion-paper-for-the-crossing-borders---jurisdiction-in-cyberspace- conference-march-2016---final [Acessed 8 March 2017].

https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-6


Copyright (c) 2017 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology