Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 DECEMBER 2022

Sésame, Ouvre-toi !

Soulier Avocats
Explore more from Soulier Avocats

Le téléphone portable apparait dans notre société comme un second domicile. Tout y est, et notamment nos dossiers les plus secrets.

FranceCriminal Law
Victor Trouttet
Victor Trouttet

Le téléphone portable apparait dans notre société comme un second domicile. Tout y est, et notamment nos dossiers les plus secrets. Mais est-il possible de refuser de donner la clef de ce domicile ?

En d'autres termes, peut-on refuser de donner le code de déverrouillage de son smartphone ?

La Cour de cassation dans un arrêt du 7 novembre 2022 semble affirmer, a priori, que non.

Dans cet arrêt, une personne arrêtée dans le cadre d'une infraction à la législation sur les stupéfiants a refusé de donner aux enquêteurs les codes permettant de déverrouiller ses téléphones, lesquels étaient suspectés d'avoir servi dans le cadre d'un trafic de stupéfiant.

Poursuivi sur le fondement de l'article 434-15-2 du code pénal visant le refus de donner aux autorités juridicaires « la convention secrète de déchiffrement d'un moyen de cryptologie », l'individu avait été relaxé sur ce délit.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

First “Direct” Pecuniary Sanction Under Sapin II: Compliance Lessons From Decision 25-01 (Société V And MS)

France's Anti-Corruption Agency has imposed its first direct financial penalties under the Sapin II Law on a holding company and its executive for failing to implement required corruption prevention measures, marking a significant shift in enforcement approach. The decision establishes that compliance deficiencies are assessed at the audit date rather than when remediation occurs, and that senior executives may face personal liability for non-compliance. What does this landmark ruling mean for multinational
GlobalCriminal Law
Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Article

Cement Maker Lafarge And Eight Executives Convicted Of Sanctions And Terrorist Financing Breaches

A Paris court has delivered its verdict in the landmark Lafarge prosecution, convicting the French cement company and eight former executives of terrorist financing and sanctions violations related to operations in Syria. The case resulted in substantial fines for the company and prison sentences ranging from 18 months to seven years for the convicted executives, with several defendants already signaling their intent to appeal.
FranceCriminal Law
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP