This Supreme Court decision concerns a man convicted of violent robberies in the Community of Valencia and the related handling of medical data by authorities. The Court of Alicante had previously imposed a lengthy nine-year prison sentence, a judgment subsequently reviewed during the appeals process. The case highlights questions about access to medical information in criminal investigations and the legal safeguards surrounding such data usage in Spain.
The man was found guilty by the Alicante Court of committing violent robberies, using weapons, and disguising his identity in a residential home. The sentence, later upheld by the High Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia, reflected multiple offenses linked to robberies carried out in different parts of the region from late 2019 into early 2020. The case involved ongoing legal proceedings as additional defendants faced sentences for robberies carried out in other municipalities within the same period.
Wounded
During one of these robberies, the accused sustained injuries in a confrontation with a homeowner. The Security Guard, recognizing that one of the alleged aggressors might be wounded, proceeded with the robbery procedures and accepted a medical report relating to the appellant. This was done without the consent of the person involved and without a court order. The resulting action raised questions about the admissibility of such evidence and the proper boundaries for data collection in active investigations.
The convicted individual challenged the validity of this procedure, arguing that the medical data collection breached constitutional protections. Unlike the initial Alicante ruling and the Valencia High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court found that authorization must be granted by the patient or by a judge for the collection of non anonymized medical data used for investigative purposes. The ruling concluded that data should only be used for specific investigative steps and with proper authorization.
Required authorization
The court did not object to the transfer of anonymized health data between centers within the framework of an investigation. However, such data transfers must be justified by a legitimate investigative need and tied to a particular procedural step. Judges explained that investigators already possessed a range of information about how injuries had occurred, including reports of a shoulder injury from a blunt object, a subsequent car accident, a confrontation with a robbery victim, and the location of a damaged vehicle from which the suspects fled. This information helped to shape the investigative narrative and determine the next steps in the case.
According to the Supreme Court, this information became essential for establishing responsibility in the robbery and for pursuing the next phase of the investigation. The decision emphasized that the information could not be obtained through alternative means and that at least some form of official authorization was necessary to ensure due process. The ruling thus balanced the public interest in solving violent crimes with the individual rights of suspects and victims, reinforcing the principle that medical records constitute sensitive data that require clear safeguards when used in legal proceedings.