Interception, recording and transcription of communications and telecommunications can be carried out only if the following requirements are met: 1) there must already be serious pieces of evidence of the crime being prosecuted; 2) the said crime shall be punishable, according to Italian legislation, by life imprisonment or a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 5 years (many exceptions are provided to this rule, based on the kind of crime: crimes relating to narcotic and psychotropic substances; crimes relating to weapons and explosives; smuggling, crimes related to child pornography, offences connected with organized crime et alia); 3) interception must be absolutely essential for continuing the investigation. The measure may be authorized by the Investigative Judge for a maximum period of 15 days and extended for additional 15 days periods upon a specific request of the PPO.
The same apply to interception, recording and transcription of communications between people in presence (so-called environmental wiretapping). This kind of interception can also be made by the means of putting a computer capturer (so-called trojan horse) into a mobile phone or other similar electronic device. In any case, the interception can be carried out at home or other similar places only if there are grounded reasons to believe that the criminal activity is taking place there.
However, interceptions by the means of the so-called trojan horse are always possible with regard to offences related to terrorism and organized crime, as well as with regard to the most serious offences against the public administration (for the latter offences provided that reasons justifying the use of the capturing device even at home or other similar places are clearly mentioned in the Investigative Judge’s decree).
As far as offences related to organized crime (as well as other very serious crimes) are concerned, the requirements are further less strict: 1) there must already be enough (rather than serious) pieces of evidence of the crime being prosecuted; 2) interception must be necessary (rather than absolutely essential) for continuing the investigation. Moreover, the measure may be authorized by the Investigative Judge for a maximum period of 40 (rather than 15) days and extended for additional 20 days periods (rather than 15) upon a specific request of the PPO. Finally, interception at home or other similar places may be carried out even if there is no reason to believe that the criminal activity takes place there.
In urgent cases, when any delay could hamper the investigation, the PPO orders the interception by a reasoned decree, which must be communicated to the Investigative Judge within 24 hours. Within the next 24 hours the decree must be validated by the said Judge. in case of non-validation, the interception cannot go on and the outcomes cannot be used as evidence.
Interception operations are carried out by the judicial police on behalf of the PPO. Police officers draw up a report of the operations carried out, in which the content of the intercepted communications and telecommunication is summarized. Records and reports of intercepted communications and telecommunications shall immediately be lodged to secretariat of the PPO. Within 5 days of the end of the interception operations, records and reports, together with the decrees of the Investigative Judge, are filed in a confidential archive held under the direction and supervision of the Chief Prosecutor. If the filing can hamper the investigation, the Investigative Judge can authorize the PPO to postpone it, not beyond the deadline set for the same investigation. In fact, defendants are informed of the filing and have the right to examine the reports and listen to the records within a reasonable time-limit. Once this time-limit is passed, the Investigative Judge, in the adversarial proceedings of the parties, provides that only relevant interceptions remain in the file and that their full transcript shall be available. Not relevant interceptions remain in the above-mentioned archive until a final judgment put an end to the proceedings. However, the Investigative Judge, in the adversarial proceedings of the parties, can immediately order the destruction of interceptions detrimental to privacy, at the request of the party concerned.