In brief

Handing items over voluntarily waives judicial review. Objecting forces a formal seizure, which a court can examine. This small difference often decides whether you spend months without your phone or laptop.

Section 94 StPO allows items that may be relevant as evidence to be secured. If they are not handed over voluntarily, a seizure is required. Under Section 98(1) StPO it is ordered by the court as a rule, and by the prosecutor or police where there is imminent danger. If an officer seized without a court order and the person concerned expressly objected, judicial confirmation should be sought within three days (Section 98(2) sentence 1 StPO). The person concerned may request a court decision at any time (sentence 2).

Some items are protected from the outset. Section 97 StPO prohibits seizure of, for example, written communications between the accused and defence counsel, or notes made by doctors or lawyers about facts entrusted to them, as long as they are held by the professional concerned.

Phone, laptop, cloud

With digital devices, the seizure is often more intrusive than the search itself. Devices are copied and analysed, which not infrequently takes six months or more. Nobody has to reveal a PIN; that follows from the right to silence. In 2025, however, the Federal Court of Justice held that investigators may under certain conditions unlock a phone by forcibly using a fingerprint.

In such cases we press early for the analysis to be limited to what concerns the allegation, for data to be copied instead of hardware being kept, and for devices needed for work to be returned. Authorities agree to this more often than one might think when the request is properly reasoned.

Distinction

Seizure secures evidence. Where assets are to be secured for later confiscation, an asset freezing order under Section 111e StPO applies, which can lead to blocked accounts. In detail: asset freezing and blocked accounts.

General explanation, not advice on an individual case. As of November 2026.