AS POSSIBILIDADES DE PRORROGAÇÕES SUCESSIVAS DO PRAZO DE AUTORIZAÇÃO JUDICIAL DAS INTERCEPTAÇÕES TELEFÔNICAS À LUZ DA DOUTRINA E DA JURISPRUDÊNCIA

Abstract

This monograph aimed to analyze the conformity of successive extensions of the period of judicial authorization of telephone interceptions in the doctrinal and jurisprudential perspective of the Superior Court of Justice and Supreme Court. It is known that the constitutional legislator provided for the possibility of breaking the confidentiality of telephone communications, in certain situations, for the purpose of criminal investigation and criminal procedure, especially due to the inefficiency of other means of obtaining evidence traditionally used. The problem is that, although Law nº 9.296/96 that regulates telephone interception established that the capture period cannot exceed 15 days, it did not define the number of times the measure can be extended, being silent as to the total duration of telephone interceptions. The gap opened space for the courts to adopt their own interpretations, usually authorizing successively the extension of the period of judicial authorization of the abstractions, despite the absence of any legal provision in this sense, residing at this point, the problem presented in this research. To examine the conformity of the renewals, a deductive approach was necessary, from the analysis of doctrinal and jurisprudential points of view on the subject. The research showed that there is no unanimous understanding in the doctrine on the issue. There is a doctrinal current that defends the possibility of indefinite extensions, which is the majority understanding. On the other hand, forming a minority current, there are those whose understanding is that the law establishes only the possibility of a renewal, for the same period, thus totaling 30 days of capture. However, in exceptional cases, proven the indispensability of the measure, it is possible to authorize other renewals, provided that there is a thorough statement of reasons. Nevertheless, it was found that the jurisprudence of the Superior Courts analyzed, in practice, has admitted that the measure be adopted too prolonged, in disagreement with a guarantee criminal and procedural dynamics.