Part 2 65 Case Study – Search and seizure without a warrant* Several lawyers who are suspected of acting as messengers between their clients in custody and members of a terrorist organization are arrested and detained. Although they have no warrant to do so, the police search the lawyers’ homes and offices and seize a number of documents, including files of applicants to the ECtHR. No instructions as to the purpose and scope of the search are drawn up before or after the search. Question: Does the search and seizure violate the lawyers’ right to privacy? The searches of the lawyers’ homes and offices constituted an interference with their right to respect for their homes and correspondence. There was no prior or post facto authorization issued by a prosecutor or a judge and no official document or note of verbal instruction describing the purpose and scope of the searches. In addition, the searches were extensive and included the seizure of privileged professional material. In light of the lack of authorization or safeguards, these searches and seizures violate the lawyers’ right to privacy. * This case study is taken from the facts in Elçi and others v. Turkey, and the analysis of the question on the findings of the ECtHR in that case.66 Key points – Part 2: • Interviewing witnesses is a specialist task that requires specific training to be conducted in a comprehensive and human rights-compliant manner; • Law enforcement officers have the duty to provide protection and security to witnesses; • The scenes of terrorist crimes can be dangerous, and senior officers have a duty to take steps to ensure the safety of both the public and police; and • Property seized as evidence – either from a crime scene or from a suspect – must be kept for no longer than is required.