A military officer accused of serious criminal offences, including revenge porn and extortion, sought to annul a search warrant for his home.

The officer, a former lover of a married woman, allegedly obtained intimate footage of her and used it against her after she ended their relationship. Seeking revenge, he informed her husband of their affair and the existence of the material.

In December, he allegedly threatened the husband, demanding €100,000 to prevent the publication of nude photos of his wife. He also warned that if the husband reported him to the police, he would hand the material to a third party for publication.

In January, the husband reported him to the police and requested that the district court issue a search warrant for the officer’s residence, workplace and vehicle.

The officer faced multiple charges, including dissemination of pornographic material, extortion, demanding property by threats, harassment, sexual harassment, psychological violence and conspiracy to commit a felony.

A police officer supported the request for the search warrant with an affidavit, and the district court approved it, finding that the legal requirements were met.

The accused then petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the warrant, arguing that it was issued in violation of the Constitution and the law. His attorneys pointed to handwritten corrections in the affidavit and the typed warrant, which had been signed by the officer. They claimed the search warrant was wrongfully issued for his address and accused the officer of falsifying the warrant by arbitrarily correcting the address.

However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that the search warrant in the court registry matched the copy given to the police. The court further clarified that it is not illegal for a police officer to correct handwritten errors in official documents before submitting them to the court.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the officer’s application, emphasising that even if an error had been made, it did not affect the warrant’s legality. Since the district court had determined that the search was necessary and had duly approved it, such technicalities did not invalidate its legality.