Criminal investigations

Three people were accused of planning and committing several burglaries in inhabited homes , and also conspiring to commit an illegal detention . To investigate it, the police and the court used various tools such as judicially authorized telephone interventions, surveillance, ocular inspections, recovery of stolen objects, and expert evidence.

The defenses tried to break down the case by saying, in summary, that many evidence was "null" or unreliable since the phone conversations were ambiguous , that had not fingerprints or DNA at some points, that the geolocation was not accurate (due to depending on a repeater), that the police report had irregularities and that there were alternative explanations for key facts, such as the alleged victim tracking through a GPS beacon GPS tracker The Supreme Court (TS) dismisses these complaints and

confirms the conviction. According to the TS, when the wiretaps were authorized, there were objective and well-founded indications According to the Supreme Court, when the wiretaps were authorized serious crime and with plural circumstantial evidence and with a judicial authorizations for other devices, so it does not see a violation of guarantees. Regarding the conspiracy for illegal detention

About the set of clues (conversations about the device, ties/battery, surveillance, findings in searches, attempts to rent a parking space where the victim lived, etc.) and even a set of clues (conversations about the device, ties/battery, surveillances, findings in records, attempts to rent a parking space where the victim lived, etc.) and even a biological expertise linking one of the accused with a GPS ankle monitor. In conclusion, the Supreme Court considers the investigation valid and the joint assessment of evidence sufficient for conviction.