Anonymous tip-off and the assessment of criminal coercive measures of search

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the criteria used by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to validate or invalidate coercive criminal measures, such as personal or home searches, based on anonymous tips. The hypothesis is that there are inconsistencies in case law, especially regarding the requirement for preliminary investigations and documentary proof of consent in warrantless searches. The methodology adopted is predominantly empirical, analyzing collegiate decisions of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and decisions of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) from the same period, in addition to a study of in-ternational law with precedents from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), with contextualizations on the topic and critical analysis of content. The results highlight internal contradictions within the STJ, including in judgments issued on the same date and by different panels, as well as decisions that downplay the requirement for substantiated reasons, transforming the subsequent seizure of narcotics into a retroactive criterion for validation, for example. The conclusion is that the lack of uniformity compromises legal certainty, and the recent stance of the STF allows for violations of the protection of fundamental rights, necessitating more objective criteria, but aligned with international human rights standards.