| dc.description.abstract | The Contemporary Right in Brazil, undeniably, goes through a crisis in the procedural, given the rapidity of changes in society arising from new technologies and the reigning political of combat any form of crime, especially organized crime, corruption, crime endemic under the banner of public interest. For such a Herculean task, the last two decades, dozens of laws have been enacted to confront the crimes and bring the state apparatus and the machinery of justice. This study dares to analyze the result of one of the tools used for this clash, the Telephone Interception Act - Law No. 9.296/1996 - with reference to the trial in the superior courts, whose criminal actions were the use of said statute. Several high-major police operations occurred in recent years with the arrest of thousands of people and identity of the Criminal Law has changed due to these new laws, that is, operators of the law had to fit the new vision, not gradually, but rather quickly with the impact. It was found, the hard way that neither the state nor the professionals, not even the Criminal Procedure Law were prepared to do so against law enforcement and the infra-constitutional premises. All sorts of problems arose: lost faith in the guarantee of law, fundamental rights have been vilified in the public interest,
striking, sometimes the Due Process of Law. Constitutional Writs and Habeas Corpus have been filed to enforce the fundamental rights of those involved, resulting in releases of prisoners, cancellation of telephone intercepts and even sentences. Ad exemplum operations such as nicotine in Foz do Iguacu, Barley in Foz do Iguaçu and Rio de Janeiro; Sundown in Rio Grande do Sul; Themis in São Paulo; Pacenas in Mato Grosso; Sand Castle in São Paulo; Sathiagara in São Paulo; Midas Touch in Mato Grosso.This study is based on analysis of the results of operations of the patriots courts: North Exchange, Nicotine, Sundown, Sand Castle, Sathiagara in order to demonstrate these problems presented with the use of Law interception versus Due Process of Law. Considerations of Public Interest, Rights and Constitutional Guarantees Due Process of Law, underlying the study, as well as analysis of Law No. 9.296/1996. Tried in place of
Habeas Corpus that deal with questions of Rights and Constitutional in parallel with the Law No. 9.296/1996. | pt_BR |
