Ecuador police need court order for private security footage in missing persons cases

In Ecuador, the police cannot simply seize private security camera DVRs, even when investigating cases of missing persons. The recent disappearances of Nathaly Mafla and Lizeth Bunshi highlight the crucial role these cameras play in reconstructing a person's final movements. However, legal experts clarify that private property owners are not obligated to surrender their recordings solely based on a police request.

According to José Cárdenas, a lawyer at IUS Firma de Abogados, police lack the authority to take a DVR or obtain a copy without explicit authorization. If a property owner refuses, the police must inform the prosecutor, who can then petition a judge for a search warrant. This judicial order is necessary for the authorities to legally obtain the DVR or a forensic copy of the information.

However, María del Mar Gallegos, a law professor at the Universidad Internacional del Ecuador, offers a slightly different perspective. She suggests that for security cameras, a judicial order might not always be necessary; a request from the Prosecutor's Office could suffice. Yet, she emphasizes that reviewing the content of these cameras or electronic devices during a private hearing absolutely requires judicial authorization.

Both specialists agree that any equipment or device seized during a warranted search enters the chain of custody. To be used as evidence, these items, whether the full DVR or a forensic copy, require further judicial authorization. Cárdenas points out a common practice where police allow owners to view videos directly, which can provide investigative leads but does not qualify as evidence in court. For a video to be admissible, a forensic expert must create a copy of the DVR's content under strict protocols.

“

el propietario de un domicilio privado no tiene obligación de entregar sus grabaciones a la Policía solo por solicitud.