Post by account_disabled on Mar 8, 2024 23:05:02 GMT -5
If a police officer perceives with his own eyes an event that happens inside a home, he is not violating the right to the inviolability of the home established in article 18 of the Spanish Constitution. Of course, he must be able to observe it without any device for recording or approximating the images. This is what the Supreme Court recalls in a ruling in which it rejects most of the grounds for an appeal, confirming the four and three year prison sentences to which several people were sentenced for a crime against public health.
The address is inviolable (article 18.2 CE) and no entry Fax Lists or registration can be made without the consent of the owner or without judicial authorization. In numerous rulings, including STC 22/1984, it is indicated that the home is that space in which the individual “lives without necessarily being subject to social customs and conventions and exercises his or her most intimate freedom.” Not only is the physical space an object of protection, “but also what is in it that emanates from the person and their private sphere.”
In this sense, article 588 of the Criminal Procedure Law affirms the nullity of photographs taken by the police inside a home without the required judicial authorization. In this case, the images captured by the agents of the garden attached to the home , which is considered a home and not a public space, are null and void. However, there is nothing to object, in terms of legality, to the observations of the home made by the police investigation team, on which the defense wanted to extend the annulment .