View Single Post
  #1  
Old 10.10.2019, 15:24
Urs Max Urs Max is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 7,751
Groaned at 263 Times in 226 Posts
Thanked 9,300 Times in 4,896 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Federal Court: Dashcam vid illegal and unusable

The federal court has ruled recently that dashcam videos can't be used as evidence in ordinary traffic cases. They're obtained illegaly, and ordinary traffic violations (including overtaking on the right and crossing a solid white line twice in the process) aren't grave enough to use the video as evidence regardless of its illegality.

Ruling 6B_1188/2018, it looks like it hasn't been published yet, at least I can't find the ruling itself.

Here's the communique. See partial translaton below.

Quote:
www.DeepL.com[/url], with a few minor corrections]The accused had been sentenced by the district court Bülach in 2018 on the basis of dashcam recordings of another road user to a conditional fine as well as a fine of 4000 francs for multiple, partly gross, violations of traffic regulations. The Federal Court [Bundesgericht] upheld the woman's appeal and overturned the verdict of the district court [Obergericht]. The private dashcam recordings were obtained in violation of the Data Protection Act and thus illegal. Since the creation of recordings from a vehicle is not easily recognisable by other road users, it is a matter of secret data processing within the meaning of Article 4(4) of the DPA, which constitutes a violation of personality rights.
[...]
In the present case, the conduct of the motorist was qualified by the district court partly as a simple, partly as a gross violation of the traffic rules. These offences are infringements and misdemeanours which, according to federal court rulings, cannot be classified as serious criminal offences within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The balance of interests thus falls out against the use of the video as evidence.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post:
This user groans at Urs Max for this post: