skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 63969 Find in a Library
Title: TECHNOLOGY AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE (FROM DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, 1979 - SEE NCJ-63957)
Author(s): H BLEI
Corporate Author: Internationale Studien
Bundesinstituts Fuer
Ostwissenschafliche und
West Germany (Former)
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 5
Format: Document
Language: German
Country: West Germany (Former)
Annotation: WEST GERMAN LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IS ANALYZED WITH AN EMPHASIS ON PHOTOGRAPHIC AND RECORDED EVIDENCE.
Abstract: AFTER THE EXPERIENCES OF THE NAZI ERA, LEGISLATION RESTRICTING THE POLICE'S RIGHTS TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE AND PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS HAS BEEN TIGHTENED. ACCORDING TO PARAGRAPH 136A (CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED ILLEGALLY CANNOT BE ADMITTED IN COURT. THE TAKING OF PICTURES BY POLICE OFFICERS IS SUBJECT TO EXTENSIVE REGULATION. THE PHOTOGRAPHING OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE SUCH AS THE TRANSFER OF SECRET DOCUMENTS OR NARCOTICS IS PERMITTED, BUT EXPERTS DO NOT AGREE WHETHER THE SAME PROCEDURE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SUCH MINOR OFFENSES AS SPEED AND RED-LIGHT VIOLATIONS. THE POLICE ARE PERMITTED TO PHOTOGRAPH PARTICIPANTS IN VIOLENT DEMONSTRATIONS, BUT IN PEACEFUL MARCHES SUCH PROCEDURE VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY. THE TAPING AND MONITORING OF NONPUBLIC UTTERANCES (FOR PRIVATE OR OFFICIAL USE) WAS OUTLAWED IN 1967. IF THE PROSECUTION OBTAINS A PRIVATE RECORDING, IT HAS PERMISSION TO HEAR IT IN ORDER TO RULE ON ITS LEGALITY. IF THE TAPE HAS BEEN OBTAINED IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER (E.G., A SECRET RECORDING BY A PRIVATE DETECTIVE), THE MATERIAL SERVES AS GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION LEADING TO FURTHER INVESTIGATION, BUT ITS USE AS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS LIMITED. A SPECIAL RULING PERMITS THE MONITORING OF A SUSPECT'S TELEPHONE LINE FOR PARTICULAR OFFENSES, IF THE JUDGE REQUESTS IT. IF IN THE COURSE OF SUCH LEGAL OVERHEARING THE PROSECUTOR OBTAINS KNOWLEDGE OF ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT OFFENSES, THE EVIDENCE (COVERED BY THE RULE CONCERNING THE COINCIDENTAL ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE) IS STILL ADMISSIBLE IN COURT. THE ARTICLE CONTAINS NO REFERENCES. --IN GERMAN. (SAJ)
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Electronic surveillance; Evidence; Exclusionary rule; Germany; Mug shots; Police legal limitations
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63969

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.