This decision was made in a case in which the evidence leading to the defendant’s conviction for firearms and drugs offences within an organised crime group was collected with a camera installed in the parking lot of a retirement home, which although was a private space was accessible to the public and partly visible from a public road.
The court held that taking photographs of a person in a private space without their consent, even on a single occasion, was necessarily dependant on legal authorization by a judge, even if the private space was an outside one and was partly visible from a public location.
The court held that taking photographs of a person in a private space without their consent, even on a single occasion, was necessarily dependant on legal authorization by a judge, even if the private space was an outside one and was partly visible from a public location.
As such, the court overturned the appeals decision, and sent the matter back to the court of appealParticipation to an organised criminal group
Handling proceeds of a crime
Cour de cassation
This case exemplifies the restrictions that can be applied to the admissibility of evidence collected with the help of special investigative techniques, such as surveillance.