Supreme Court: Pre-trial detention confirmed with trojan wiretaps.

The Supreme Court of Cassation declared inadmissible the appeal filed by a suspect against his pre-trial detention in prison for an association crime aimed at drug trafficking. The man contested the admissibility of interceptions carried out via a computer trojan and the existence of serious evidence of guilt.

The Supreme Court rejected the objections, ruling that the new, stricter regulations on the use of trojans, which require specific justification, apply only to proceedings registered from September 1, 2020. The case in question, dating back to 2018, is therefore governed by the previous legislation. The Court also reiterated that the lower court had correctly justified the existence of serious evidence based on interceptions, video surveillance, and tracking, which demonstrated a stable drug trafficking organization with the suspect in a leadership role.

In confirming the pre-trial detention, the Court of Cassation emphasized the man's significant criminal capability and professionalism, the duration of the crimes, and his integration into a criminal context, factors that justify the measure to prevent the repetition of crimes. The suspect was ordered to pay court costs and a fine of three thousand euros.

Interceptions using computer surveillance devices, commonly known as trojans, are investigative tools that allow the acquisition of data from electronic devices such as smartphones and computers. Their use in the Italian criminal process has sparked intense debate for years between investigative needs and the protection of fundamental rights, such as privacy and the confidentiality of communications.

The origin of the legal issue dates back to the need to combat increasingly technologically advanced forms of crime, such as organized crime and drug trafficking. For years, the use of this software was governed by rules considered unclear, leading to frequent disputes over the validity of the evidence obtained. The legislature therefore intervened to introduce more precise rules, with a reform that came into force on September 1, 2020, which imposes specific motivational requirements for authorizing its use.

Today's ruling clarifies a crucial point: the principle of "tempus regit actum" (time governs the act). This means that to assess the legitimacy of interceptions, the legislation in force at the time of the initiation of the proceedings applies, not subsequent legislation. This creates a differentiated framework: cases initiated before September 2020 follow the previous rules, while those after must comply with the new, more stringent parameters. The ruling also reiterates that not every omission of technical detail automatically renders the evidence unusable, except for violations expressly sanctioned by law.