Courts Set Limits on Lengthy Digital Evidence Seizures to Protect Fundamental Rights

Judicial authorities in Germany are increasingly imposing strict boundaries on the length of time law enforcement can retain and analyze digital storage devices during criminal investigations. This shift comes amid growing concerns that extended periods of digital evidence review may infringe upon fundamental rights, including property rights, the right to informational self-determination, and the right to effective legal recourse.

The analysis and temporary seizure of digital devices such as computers, smartphones, and external drives have become common tools in criminal proceedings. However, the process of examining seized data often extends over several months or even years. Recent rulings from various regional courts have highlighted the need for proportionality, emphasizing that lengthy investigations cannot override the fundamental rights of those affected.

Legal experts note that the courts are clarifying the legal framework governing such procedures. According to current interpretations, the temporary seizure of digital storage devices as outlined in Section 110 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) is not a license for indefinite retention. Instead, the review should serve as a prompt, preliminary step to determine the relevance of the data. Following this review, authorities must either return the devices or seek a formal judicial order for their continued seizure under Section 98 StPO. While the law does not prescribe exact time frames, the legality of prolonged retention is subject to careful, case-specific evaluation.

Crucial factors for determining proportionality include the gravity of the alleged crime, the scope and complexity of the data involved, the urgency of the case--such as when suspects are in custody--and the degree to which the seizure affects the individual's personal or professional life. Courts have consistently underlined that the prosecution is responsible for ensuring timely and proportionate procedures, and must document their actions accordingly. Administrative or technical bottlenecks within investigative agencies do not justify excessive delays or the infringement of basic rights.

Several court decisions have set clear benchmarks. For example, the Hamburg Regional Court found that a four-and-a-half-year data evaluation in a complex economic crime case was unjustifiable. The court criticized prosecutors for failing to apply for a formal seizure or return the data after the initial review, ruling that prolonged uncertainty--even in complicated cases--was disproportionate. The court mandated the deletion of the resulting evaluation reports.

In another instance, the Cologne Regional Court ordered the release of digital devices that had remained untouched for two and a half years, emphasizing that authorities cannot delay investigations based on vague or unsubstantiated timelines from police. Similarly, the Essen Regional Court rebuked prosecutors for passivity and lack of prioritization in managing digital evidence.

Court decisions also recognize that even shorter periods of retention may be deemed excessive if the underlying suspicion is weak. For instance, the Frankfurt Regional Court ordered the return of a laptop after four months, as the suspicion in that case was based only on an unreliable witness statement. In contrast, the Dresden Regional Court considered a 14-month review period reasonable in an investigation involving child exploitation imagery, citing prompt outsourcing to an external IT firm and a well-documented necessity for comprehensive analysis. Nonetheless, courts caution that preliminary reviews must not become a covert means of mass data retention beyond their intended scope.

These developments signal a trend towards greater judicial scrutiny of digital investigations, requiring law enforcement agencies to balance investigative needs with the protection of constitutional rights. The emerging legal consensus stresses that efficient and fair procedures are essential to uphold trust in the justice system and to prevent undue hardship for individuals subject to investigation.