Alar Lehesmets: There is no mass phone surveillance in Estonia
In Estonia, approximately 500 surveillance warrants per year are issued in criminal proceedings for phone tapping, and there is no uncontrolled or mass surveillance, writes prosecutor Alar Lehesmets.
In criminal proceedings, a phone may be wiretapped only with court authorization. Based on the prosecutor's application, the court verifies that the measures are unavoidable, justified, and proportionate. Conducting surveillance measures is one of the legally permitted methods of collecting evidence in criminal proceedings, similar to searches or interrogations.
Surveillance activities are subject to a strict regulatory framework and oversight by prosecutors, the courts, and the Chancellor of Justice, to ensure that surveillance measures are used only when absolutely necessary and when the need to protect the legal interest harmed by the investigated crime outweighs the infringement of an individual's fundamental rights.
Last year, courts issued approximately 500 authorizations for phone-tapping measures in criminal proceedings. This is comparable to previous years. In 11 cases, the court denied authorization. A single authorization may cover multiple phones.
At the same time, there are typically between 12,000 and 13,000 criminal cases at the pretrial stage, and all surveillance measures (including wiretapping) are connected to 179 criminal cases—primarily involving drug crimes, money laundering, and criminal organizations. In other words, surveillance measures are used in less than two percent of criminal cases, and phone tapping occurs in even fewer proceedings.
All communications sessions are recorded during wiretapping. As a result, conversations that are not relevant to the criminal case may also be recorded. Because calls usually involve two parties, statements made by a person not involved in the criminal proceedings are inevitably captured. If such a person is identified during the proceedings and the monitoring of their call significantly infringed upon their private and family life, they are informed accordingly.
It is important to note that notifications about surveillance measures are carried out by surveillance authorities and in accordance with the applicable procedures. In some cases, the interests of the criminal proceedings may require delaying the notification. Decisions to postpone notification are made after careful consideration and occur with the authorization of either the Prosecutor's Office or the court.
If a phone call does not contain sensitive private information — for example, if someone orders a pizza, discusses general work-related matters (such as an unpleasant experience with a client), or seeks additional information about a vehicle sales listing — notification generally does not follow. A person subject to surveillance measures receives this information in the course of the criminal proceedings.
--
Editor: Argo Ideon
