Background
On May 18, 2023, at approximately 2 a.m., three people refueling an Audi were targeted by two people traveling in a Renault Twingo, one of whom was armed with a firearm. DNA comparisons and material obtained from other proceedings led investigators to suspect that M. [O] [K] was the shooter.
M. [K] was formally placed under investigation for attempted murder on September 4, 2024. He later sought the nullification of multiple investigative materials, including evidence collected from the victims’ Audi, an unsigned copy of a request for service-station surveillance footage, unsigned copies of records imported from other proceedings, and materials concerning his custody in three earlier investigations.
On January 9, 2026, the Rennes Court of Appeal’s Investigation Chamber declined to order further investigation or nullify any act or document. M. [K] appealed to the Court of Cassation, which ordered immediate examination of the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Criminal Chamber rejected the appeal. It held that investigators’ opening and examination of the victims’ Audi—including observations, sampling, and seizures—fell within Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not constitute a search. Arguments based on noncompliance with the rules governing searches therefore failed.
The Court also held that Article 60-1 permits requests to third parties for information to be made by any means. Copies of records taken from earlier proceedings need not themselves bear their authors’ signatures when a signed record of annexation identifies the documents and guarantees their authenticity.
Finally, the challenges concerning M. [K]’s custody in three prior investigations were inapposite. The records on which he relied were not the required notices informing the public prosecutor of his placement in custody; they were progress reports sent to the prosecutor while the custody measures were underway. The Court summarily found the remaining grounds insufficient to warrant admission of the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Examining a crime victim’s targeted vehicle under Article 54 is not necessarily a search governed by the procedural rules for searches.
- A third-party information request may be transmitted by any means, and copied records from earlier proceedings need not be individually signed if a signed annexation record authenticates them.
- Investigation progress reports sent to a prosecutor cannot, without more, establish defects in the separate notices required when a person is placed in police custody.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes crime-scene examination of a victim’s vehicle from a procedural search and clarifies how investigators may authenticate documents imported from other cases. It confirms that a signed annexation record can preserve the evidentiary authenticity of unsigned copies.
The ruling also underscores that a nullity challenge must rest on the procedural document that actually records the allegedly defective formality. Records serving a different function will not establish that the required notice was absent, late, or incomplete.