Relevância das interceptações telefônicas no combate ao crime

Abstract

In recent weeks, the Brazilian company was baffled by the news media that all the time denounced the daring of the "outlaws", where several criminal factions gathered for spreading terror in the capital of Rio de Janeiro. Several shops were broken into, strafed barracks, burned cars, etc.. right now it seems the situation is under control. But it took the addition of various national forces for the arrest of criminals, because several were arrested, including accused of having participated in the murder of journalist Tim Lopes of Globo TV. We realize that communication played a critical to mission success. And communication is always efficient for the arrest of those who walk in the "world" of crime. An example is the Law No. 9296 of July 24, 1996, which regulated the interception. The issue of admissibility of evidence unlawfully has the strongest arguments from the theory American fruits of the poisonous tree, under which evidence obtained by unlawful means absolutely can not be admitted in court, and the derived, because it infects the whole process. What is the effect of the inadmissibility of illegal evidence? May be admissible evidence in the proceedings formally lawful, but evidence derived from illegal material? The inadmissibility of illegal evidence, and its consequent rejection by the judiciary have an important meaning for the law of evidence, despite the ethical and political applications, derived from fundamental rights, on one hand, a placement guarantee, protect individuals against abusive state interventionism and on the other hand, recognizes the limited value of these rights. What is the position of the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of illegal evidence? In the field of the prohibitions of proof, the tone is given by procedural or substantive nature of writing: how to distinguish illegitimate evidence of illegal evidence? Law No. 9.296/96, of telephone intercepts, was released to pacify the controversies of the courts and legal sectors to meet claims. This statute seeks to protect the right to privacy. Importantly, communication secrecy is the rule which the interception, legally authorized by judicial authority, is the exception.