How to Describe a Seized Phone and Equipment in a Search Protocol
Short answer
For each device, ask the protocol and inventory to state its type, manufacturer, model, colour, serial number or IMEI, visible condition, attached SIM cards and media, discovery location, packaging method and package number. Record any data copying and how the copy was identified separately. Obtain the second protocol copy; completeness of the description does not automatically determine the case outcome.
- Published
- Legally reviewed
- Author
- Vitaliy BessonovAttorney-at-law, license No. 1893 dated 18 February 2015
Step-by-step action plan
- 1Compare the device or equipment category with the warrant and ask for the item’s procedural status to be stated if it is outside the list
- 2Observe every item from discovery through packaging; ask for visible identifiers to be shown on the official recording without independently manipulating the device
- 3Compare the actual number of phones, SIM cards, laptops, drives and packages with every line of the protocol and inventory
- 4If copying occurs, preserve the specialist, source, scope, technical tool, destination medium and method used to identify the copy
- 5Before signing, read every page, dictate specific additions or comments, obtain the second protocol copy with the inventory, and photograph them without editing
What the law provides
Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defines material evidence as physical objects that were an instrument of an offence, retained its traces or contain other information relevant to the proceeding. A phone, laptop or storage device does not become evidence merely because it was taken; procedural assessment depends on the connection between the particular object or data and the circumstances of the case.
Under Article 104, the protocol records the course and results of a procedural action. Its descriptive part must state the items and documents found or provided, while the final part must identify seized items and the method used to identify them. Copies of information, including computer data, and their method of identification are recorded separately, together with participants’ comments and additions. The CPC does not prescribe a closed set of fields such as model, IMEI and serial number. Those are practical identifiers to request where they can be observed or verified reliably.
Article 168(2) allows temporary taking of electronic information systems, computer systems or their parts, or mobile communication terminals for examination of physical properties only where they are expressly identified in the court order. Temporary taking is generally prohibited except in the situations expressly listed there: the object and its information are required for expert examination, it resulted from an offence, it was a means or instrument, access is restricted by the owner or holder, or logical protection must be overcome. An investigator or prosecutor copies information with a specialist participating.
Article 236 limits a search to the scope necessary for its purpose, permits computer data to be searched, found and recorded on site under the statutory conditions, and distinguishes property listed in the warrant from temporarily seized property outside it. People present may make statements that must be entered in the protocol. After the search, the person receives the second protocol copy with the attached inventory of seized documents and temporarily seized items where such an inventory was prepared.
Practical identification checklist
Request a separate entry for every item. Do not present information as established when it is not visible or verified. A statement such as “not determined without unlocking” or another factual explanation is better than an assumption.
If data is copied on site, ask for the source device or system, scope of copying, participating specialist, tool used, destination medium and method used to identify the result to be stated separately. A checksum should be recorded only if it was actually calculated; an invented or unverified hash does not improve the protocol.
Step-by-step action plan
What follows from case law
In its 29 March 2021 judgment in case No. 554/5090/16-k, proceeding No. 51-1878kmo20, the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court considered electronic documents. It reasoned that admissibility cannot be denied solely because of electronic form and that electronic instances with identical content on different media may be treated as originals. Identification may be performed, among other methods, using a checksum or a specialist examination.
That conclusion does not determine the lawfulness of taking every phone and does not mean that a missing IMEI automatically excludes evidence or, conversely, that a hash guarantees reliability. The practical point for a protocol is narrower: the physical carrier, copied data and method used to identify the copy should not be conflated. The court later assesses provenance, integrity and procedure on the particular case materials.
Common mistakes
What to do after the search
Preserve the warrant copy, second protocol copy, inventory, page photographs and your timeline in their original form. Prepare a separate “item — identifiers — location — package — comments” table and give it to counsel. Any request for return, review of property seizure or evidentiary objection depends on each item’s status, the warrant and the materials of the particular proceeding.
Rule of law and case law
What the law provides
- Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine — ст. 98, 104, 168, 236
What follows from case law
In case No. 554/5090/16-k, the Joint Chamber explained that an electronic document is not inadmissible merely because of its form and that identical instances on different media may be originals; identification may use a checksum or specialist examination. The conclusion does not automatically determine the lawfulness of seizure or the consequence of an inventory gap.
Official sources
- LawCriminal Procedure Code of Ukraine — ст. 98, 104, 168, 236
- Supreme CourtSupreme Court Joint Chamber, 29 March 2021, case No. 554/5090/16-k — originals and identification of electronic documents
- Supreme CourtSupreme Court Joint Chamber judgment of 29 March 2021 in case No. 554/5090/16-k
- RegistryUnified State Register of Court Decisions
- RegistrySupreme Court Legal Positions Database
Frequently asked questions
Which phone particulars does the CPC expressly require?
The CPC does not provide a closed model, IMEI and serial-number list. Article 104 requires seized items and their identification method to be stated. Available distinguishing features, the source of an identifier, condition and packaging should therefore be recorded precisely enough to distinguish the item.
What if the IMEI is not visible without unlocking?
Do not guess the number or independently change the device state. Ask for other visible features and the factual reason the IMEI was not determined to be recorded. Discuss device access with defense counsel under the particular procedure.
Should SIM cards and storage media be described separately?
If they are taken, ask for their number, visible identifiers or other features, the device from which they were removed and the package used to be stated separately. This is a practical way to meet the identification requirement, not a separate closed CPC list.
How should copying from a phone or laptop be recorded?
Article 104 requires computer-data copies and their identification method to be stated, while Article 168 provides for specialist participation in copying. Ask for the source, scope, specialist, tool, destination medium and actual identifier, including a hash only where one was calculated.
Does an incomplete inventory automatically exclude evidence?
No. The court assesses the warrant, protocol, video, item identity, data provenance and integrity, and the effect of the particular breach. Record the gap precisely, but no single omission guarantees return of property or exclusion of evidence.