(In)applicability of the “foregone conclusion” doctrine and access to encrypted devices in Brazilian Criminal Procedural Law

Views: 107

Authors

Keywords:

Encrypted Devices;, Right not to self-incrimination;, Foregone Conclusion;, Brazilian Criminal Procedural Law

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the applicability of the US “foregone conclusion” doctrine in Brazilian Criminal Procedural Law, in criminal investigation situations that seek to access computer data stored in encrypted devices, whose access is based on personal passwords or biometric sensors. It starts with the study of American cases on which this doctrine is based, specifying its criteria and application possibilities, in order to later confront them with the rules of Brazilian Criminal Procedural Law, notably the Right to non-self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence as a treatment rule, a judgment rule, and an evidence rule. Precedents from the Brazilian Superior Courts are used to confirm the arguments adopted and to establish conclusions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Dr. Carlos Hélder Carvalho Furtado Mendes, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul - PUCRS - Porto Alegre/RS

Doutor e Mestre em Ciências Criminais pela PUC-RS. Advogado.

Dr. Yuri Felix, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul - PUCRS - Porto Alegre/RS

Doutor e Mestre em Ciências Criminais pela PUC-RS. Professor, palestrante e parecerista com artigos publicados em revistas especializadas. Advogado.

References

BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. HC 80.949/SP. Rel. Min. Sepulveda Pertence, Primeira Turma, Dje 14/12/2001.

BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. HC 91.867/PA. Rel. Min. Gilmar Mendes, Segunda Turma, DJe 20/09/2012.

BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. HC 131.946/MG. Rel. Min. Edson Fachin. Julgamento: 16/12/2015; DJe 01/02/2016.

BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Recurso Especial nº 1875514-MS (2020/0120173-6). Rel. Min. Laurita Vaz. HC 580.664/RJ, Rel. Ministro Nefi Cordeiro, Sexta Turma, julgado em 20/10/2020, DJe 12/11/2020a.

BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. HC 168.052/SP. Rel. Min. Gilmar Mendes, DJe 20/10/2020b.

BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. ARE 1350870/MS. Recurso Extraordinário com Agravo. Rel. Min. Alexandre de Moraes. Julgamento: 11/10/2021.

CASEY, Eoghan. Digital evidence and computer crime. 3. ed. San Diego: Elsevier, 2011.

ESTADOS UNIDOS. U.S. Supreme Court. Schmerber v. California. 384 U.S. 757, n. 658, p. 384, U. S. 760-765, 1966.

ESTADOS UNIDOS. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Baust. CR14-1439, 2nd Cir. Oct. 28, 2014.

ESTADOS UNIDOS. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court. State of Minnesota v. Matthew Vaughn Diamond. A15-2075, 2018. Disponível em: https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2018/OPA152075-011718.pdf. Acesso em: set. 2022.

ILLUMINATI, Giulio. La presunzione d’innocenza dell’imputato. Serie di Diritto. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1979.

KERR, Orin. Compelled decryption and the privilege against self-incrimination. Texas Law Review, v. 97, n. 767, p. 3, 2019.

OLIVEIRA E SILVA, Sandra. O arguido como meio de prova contra si mesmo: considerações em torno do princípio nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare. Coimbra: Almedina, 2019.

POLANSKY, Jonathan. Garantias constitucionales del procedimiento penal en el entorno digital. Buenos Aires: Hammurabi, 2020.

PORTILLO, Victor Hugo; MATTEO, Juan Manuel. Autoincriminación y nuevas tecnologias. In: RIQUERT, Marcelo; SUEIRO, Carlos Christian. Sistema penal e informática: ciberdelitos, evidencia digital, tics. v. 2. Buenos Aires: Hammurabi, 2021.

SACHAROFF, Laurent. Unlocking the fifth amendment: passwords and encrypted devices. 87 Fordham Law, v. 87, n. 1, Rev. 203, 2018. Disponível em: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss1/9

Downloads

Published

2023-04-08

How to Cite

Hélder Carvalho Furtado Mendes, D. C., & Felix, D. Y. (2023). (In)applicability of the “foregone conclusion” doctrine and access to encrypted devices in Brazilian Criminal Procedural Law . Boletim IBCCRIM, 31(365), 6–9. Retrieved from https://publicacoes.ibccrim.org.br/index.php/boletim_1993/article/view/465

Issue

Vol. 31 No. 365 (2023): Boletim IBCCRIM - Abril

Section

Doutrina

License

Copyright of published articles belongs to the author, but with journal rights over the first publication and respecting the one-year exclusivity period. Authors may only use the same results in other publications by clearly indicating this journal as the medium of the original publication. If there is no such indication, it will be considered a situation of self-plagiarism.

Therefore, the reproduction, total or partial, of the articles published here is subject to the express mention of the origin of its publication in this journal, citing the volume and number of this publication. For legal purposes, the source of the original publication must be consigned, in addition to the DOI link for cross-reference (if any).