This is how one can summarize the recent decision of the Ravensburg Regional Court (LG Ravensburg, decision of February 14, 2023, case no. 2 Qs 9/23 jug. ). What was previously consider safe turns out to be a waste of time for the state. How did this come about Code of Criminal Procedure?
Facts Code of Criminal Procedure
The accused was suspect, among other things, of inciting the illegal import of a significant quantity of narcotics. During a search, the police confiscat the accused’s smartphone. The investigating authorities hop to find evidence of the crime on the device. However, germany business fax list the suspect refus to unlock his smartphone using his fingerprint. The police now want to find a way to access the data on the smartphone, as the suspect had not written down the passwords anywhere else.
Section 81b para. 1 StPO as legal basis
The court sees the legal basis for taking fingerprints and using them to unlock smartphones in the wording of Section 81b Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to this provision, fingerprints may be taken, among other things, how marketers are reacting to coronavirus and their tips for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings or for identification purposes, even against the will of the accus, and similar measures may be taken against the accus. The court considers the use of fingerprints to be a “similar measure,” as the provision was deliberately formulat openly by the legislature so that the static wording of the law could be adapt to the current state of technology.
Taking a fingerprint also has an identification function
The court adopts an approach according to which the use of the recorde. Ingerprints to unlock the smartphone also has an identification function. The fingerprint as an intermediate goal to obtain the stored data requirfor proof (of the crime). It is true that by placing his finger on the smartphone, albania business directory the accused inde. Identifies himself as an authorized user. However, access to biometrically encrypted personal data cannot be considered. Identification measure within the meaning of Section 81b Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Considering the official heading of Section 81b of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) – ” Identification measures for the accuseity.
Low or rather high intensity of intervention?
According to the court, this measure is necessary because the smartphone cannot be unlock either through the defendant’s voluntary cooperation or through discovered passwords. However, another method of obtaining the data would be more time-consuming and costly than using a fingerprint. Furthermore, due to the low level of intrusion, the right to informational self-determination must take second place to the general interest of effective law enforcement.
Data protection aspects
First of all, biometric data is a special category of personal data, so Section 48 Paragraph 1 of the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG) should be considered first. This law makes the permissibility of data processing dependent on whether it is absolutely necessary to fulfill the task .