A Bug in Her Husband's Car? It's Not Illegal Wiretapping

The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 33499 of 2019, established that installing a bug inside a car does not constitute the crime of unauthorized wiretapping, but still constitutes unlawful interference with private life.

The case examined

A detective agency, hired by a suspicious wife, had placed a GPS tracking device and a bug in her husband's car. This allowed detectives to monitor his movements and listen to conversations inside the car. However, the Court of Cassation ruled that this behavior did not fall under the category of unauthorized wiretapping, instead classifying it as unlawful interference with private life, a crime prosecutable only upon complaint from the person involved, which in this case was not filed.

The Court's decision

According to the judges, there is no violation of Article 617-bis of the Criminal Code, since there is no unlawful access to a confidential communication channel between different parties. The use of devices such as bugs and GPS devices, in fact, allows for the collection of information on movements and acquaintances, but does not involve the interception of remote communication between third parties.

Article 617-bis of the Criminal Code was designed to protect the confidentiality of telephone, telegraphic, or other communications between distant parties. Although technological advances have led to an expansion of the protected situations, the provision does not apply to cases in which conversations between people present are recorded, unless the intent is to risk a broad interpretation unfavorable to the defendant (analogy in malam partem).

Case law precedents

The Supreme Court confirmed a previous position (Criminal Court, Fifth Section, ruling no. 4264/2015), reiterating that placing a bug in a car does not entail unauthorized access to a confidential communication channel between third parties. Consequently, the defendants were acquitted, as the alleged crime could only be prosecuted upon complaint from the injured party, which in this case had not been filed.