1. Why a home search is such a critical moment
Few situations are more intrusive than waking up early in the morning with the police at your door, entering your home on the basis of a search warrant. Beyond the emotional shock, a home search is a direct interference with your private life and personal space. This is why the Romanian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure treat it as an exceptional measure, which must be strictly justified and controlled.
Article 27 of the Constitution enshrines the inviolability of the home: no one may enter or remain in a person’s home without that person’s consent, except in the cases provided by law, and searches are ordered by a judge and carried out under the conditions laid down by law (Article 27 (1)–(3) of the Constitution, available, for example, on [constitutiaromaniei.ro](https://www.constitutiaromaniei.ro/art-27-inviolabilitatea-domiciliului/)). At the same time, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to respect for private life and home. The European Court of Human Rights has found violations in several cases involving Romanian home searches where these safeguards were not properly observed (for instance, Kilyen v. Romania and Cacuci and S.C. Virra & Cont Pad S.R.L. v. Romania, available via [hudoc.echr.coe.int](https://hudoc.echr.coe.int)).
The purpose of this article is to explain, in clear language, what a home search means in Romanian law, when it can be ordered, how it is carried out, what rights you have and what you can do if the search was conducted in breach of the law. It is not individual legal advice, but it gives you a structured framework for the discussion with your lawyer.
2. What is a home search in legal terms?
A search is a probative measure regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 156 CCP lists the types of searches: home search, body search, vehicle search and computer search (updated text of the Code, for example on [legislatie.just.ro](https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/184192). A home search is aimed at obtaining evidence regarding a specific criminal offence, preserving traces of the offence or locating the suspect or defendant.
The notion of “home” in criminal procedure is broader than the mere address written on your identity card. According to Article 157 (2) CCP, a home is any dwelling or any delimited space, in any manner, belonging to or used by a natural or legal person. This includes flats, houses, yards, annexes, offices, company headquarters, warehouses or other premises effectively used by a person or a company (Article 157 CCP, updated version available, for example, on [lege5.ro](https://lege5.ro/gratuit/geztkobvha/art-157-cazurile-si-conditiile-in-care-se-poate-dispune-perchezitia-domiciliara-codul-de-procedura-penala).
Importantly, the law does not limit home searches to the suspect’s or defendant’s dwelling. Any home can be searched, provided the legal conditions are met. This means that you may be targeted by a home search even if you are not a suspect, but the authorities consider that you hold items or documents relevant to a criminal case.
3. When can a home search be ordered: the “reasonable suspicion” requirement
The conditions for ordering a home search are set out in Article 157 CCP. The provision states that a home search or a search of items located in a home may be ordered if there is a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed or that items or documents related to an offence are being held there, and if it is presumed that the search may lead to the discovery and collection of evidence, to the preservation of traces of the offence or to the arrest of the suspect or defendant (Article 157 CCP, available, for example, on [sintact.ro](https://sintact.ro/legislatie/monitorul-oficial/codul-de-procedura-penala-din-2010-legea-nr-135-2010-16910517/art-157).
“Reasonable suspicion” is more than a vague assumption or a rumour. In practice, there must be concrete data and indications in the file (for example statements, interceptions, documents, forensic findings) which credibly support the hypothesis that the persons, items or documents relevant to the case can be found at that address. The judge is not required to set out all this material in the warrant itself, but must verify it on the basis of the prosecutor’s application.
In addition, the search must be useful and proportionate: the judge must be able to conclude that there is a real chance that the measure will lead to the discovery of evidence or to the arrest of a suspect. A warrant issued merely “to see what we find” departs from the legal standard and may later give rise to challenges concerning the admissibility of the evidence.
4. Who orders the search and what should the warrant look like?
A home search is ordered exclusively by the judge of rights and liberties, at the request of the prosecutor. This follows both from the Constitution (Article 27 (3)) and from Article 158 CCP, which details the procedure for issuing a search warrant (Article 158 CCP, updated text available, for example, on [coduri.juridice.ro](https://coduri.juridice.ro/codul-de-procedura-penala/index.php/2019/09/22/art-158-procedura-de-emitere-a-mandatului-de-perchezitie-domiciliara/). The prosecutor’s application must indicate:
– the offence under investigation;
– the concrete data justifying the reasonable suspicion;
– the home or premises proposed to be searched;
– the items or documents sought.
The warrant issued by the judge must state, in essence, the alleged offence and the relevant legal provisions, the address or place to be searched, the time-frame within which it may be executed and the person in respect of whom the measure is carried out. It has a limited period of validity (in practice usually 15 days) and cannot operate as a “blank cheque” allowing the authorities to search, at any time, any premises loosely connected to the person concerned.
An important issue has been examined by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Decision no. 38 of 15 May 2023, delivered in the interests of the law. The Court clarified the conditions under which the prosecutor may continue the search in neighbouring premises where, during the search, it is established that the evidence or the persons sought have been moved (the decision is available on [iccj.ro](https://www.iccj.ro/)). The general conclusion is that an extension of the search cannot disregard the limits of the original warrant and must comply with the safeguards laid down by law, including judicial control.
5. How is a home search actually carried out?
Article 159 CCP regulates how a home search is executed (updated text available, for example, on [legislatie.just.ro](https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/184192). Key practical points include:
· The warrant is communicated to the prosecutor, who takes the necessary measures for its execution.
– The search is carried out by the prosecutor or by the criminal investigation body, accompanied, where appropriate, by operational staff (police officers, gendarmes, etc.).
– A home search cannot start before 6:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m., except in cases of flagrant offence or when the search is carried out in premises open to the public at that time (Article 159 (3) CCP, summarised, for example, on [ro.wolterskluwer.ro](https://ro.wolterskluwer.ro/art-159-efectuarea-perchezitiei-domiciliare/).
– Before the search begins, the authorities must identify themselves and hand over a copy of the warrant to the person whose home is to be searched, to that person’s representative or to a member of the family, or, failing that, to any other adult who knows that person; in the case of a legal entity, the warrant is handed to its representative or, failing that, to an employee present on the premises (Article 159 (5)–(6) CCP, reproduced, for instance, on [coduri.juridice.ro](https://coduri.juridice.ro/codul-de-procedura-penala/index.php/2019/09/22/art-159-efectuarea-perchezitiei-domiciliare/).
– During the search, the authorities may restrict the freedom of movement of persons present or the access of other persons to the premises if this is necessary for the proper conduct of the measure (Article 159 (4) CCP).
At the end of the search, a written record (proces-verbal) is drawn up, describing how the search was carried out, the items and documents seized, and any objections made by the persons present. The general rules on the content of such records are laid down in Article 161 CCP (see, for example, [lege5.ro](https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/geztkobvha/perchezitia-codul-de-procedura-penala?dp=gqztimjqgizdm).
6. Rights of the person whose home is searched
Even though a home search is a tense and stressful event, you retain a number of rights recognised by domestic law and by the Strasbourg Court’s case-law:
· The right to be shown the warrant. Except for the constitutionally regulated emergency situations (for instance, a flagrant offence under Article 27 (2)–(4) of the Constitution, available on [constitutiaromaniei.ro](https://www.constitutiaromaniei.ro/art-27-inviolabilitatea-domiciliului/), you are not required to allow the authorities to enter your home before seeing the warrant.
– The right to receive a copy of the warrant, which you may keep after the search has been carried out.
– The right to call a lawyer. The authorities are not obliged to postpone the search until the lawyer arrives, but in practice many prosecutors will wait for a reasonable amount of time.
– The right to be treated with dignity and without abuse. Any disproportionate use of force may be challenged afterwards.
– The right to make objections, which must be recorded in the written record of the search. For example, you may indicate that certain items do not belong to you or that the authorities have entered rooms which were not listed in the warrant.
– The right to obtain, at a later stage and subject to the applicable rules, copies of the search record and of any photographs or recordings made by the authorities.
The Strasbourg Court has repeatedly held that the legality of a search depends not only on the existence of a warrant, but also on the manner in which the search is carried out in practice. In Cacuci and S.C. Virra & Cont Pad S.R.L. v. Romania, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and criticised, among other things, the way in which the searches were executed at the claimant’s home and business premises, including the lack of sufficient safeguards to protect documents covered by professional secrecy (see, for example, the Romanian summary on [legal-land.ro](https://www.legal-land.ro/cedo-perchezitie-corporala-contrara-conventiei-cauza-cacuci-si-sc-virra-cont-pad-srl-impotriva-romaniei/).
7. Common irregularities in home searches
From a defence perspective, several issues tend to recur in criminal cases involving home searches:
· Warrants drafted in generic terms, which do not sufficiently individualise the alleged offences, the persons concerned or the premises to be searched, although Article 158 CCP requires those elements to be set out (see Article 158 CCP and the relevant commentary on [ro.wolterskluwer.ro](https://ro.wolterskluwer.ro/art-158-procedura-de-emitere-a-mandatului-de-perchezitie-domiciliara/).
– Searches conducted at addresses other than those mentioned in the warrant, without complying with the extension procedure under Article 158 (3) CCP.
– Searches started outside the 6 a.m.–8 p.m. time window, without a valid exception (flagrant offence or search in public premises).
– Failure to properly hand over the warrant or reliance on a merely verbal explanation of the purpose of the search, without handing the copy required by Article 159 (5) CCP.
– Incomplete recording of the person’s objections in the written record, or refusal to include certain comments requested by the person whose home is being searched.
– Seizure of items or documents with no clear link to the case, without adequate justification and without clearly distinguishing between potentially relevant and unrelated material.
Such irregularities may have serious procedural consequences: they may lead to a finding that the search warrant or the search itself is null and void, and to the exclusion of evidence obtained unlawfully under Article 102 CCP (the exclusionary rule, as set out in Article 102 CCP and discussed, for example, on [lege5.ro](https://lege5.ro/gratuit/geztkobvha/art-102-excluderea-probelor-obtinute-in-mod-nelegal-codul-de-procedura-penala) and [universuljuridic.ro](https://www.universuljuridic.ro/consideratii-generale-privind-excluderea-probelor-administrate-in-mod-nelegal-in-cursul-procesului-penal/).
8. Practical tips: how to protect yourself during a home search
In reality, a home search almost always comes as a surprise. Nevertheless, a few practical rules may help you protect your position:
· Stay calm and do not use physical resistance. Physical resistance may lead to additional charges, such as assaulting a public official.
– Ask to see the warrant and, if possible, take a photo of it or write down its essential data (court, number, date, offence, address).
– Check whether the address and the person mentioned in the warrant match the actual situation. If there are discrepancies (for instance, a different flat number), point them out immediately and insist that they be recorded in the search record.
– Call a lawyer as soon as possible. Even if the search is not postponed until the lawyer arrives, he or she can advise you over the phone and may come to the scene.
– Ask for your objections to be recorded in the written record. If this is refused, write down the names of the officers present and contact a lawyer immediately after the search ends.
– Do not sign anything in a hurry. You are entitled to read the search record before signing it, and you may refuse to sign if you disagree with its contents, indicating that you do so.
9. What can you do after the search: nullities, exclusion of evidence, complaints
Once the search is over, the focus shifts to legal analysis. Your lawyer can examine:
· whether the substantive conditions for issuing the warrant were met (reasonable suspicion, usefulness of the search, proportionality);
– whether the warrant was issued by a competent judge and contains all the elements required by Article 158 CCP;
– whether the search was carried out in compliance with the procedural rules (time limits, service of the warrant, content of the written record, spatial limits of the warrant).
If serious irregularities are found, the following steps may be considered:
· a complaint against the investigative measures and acts, under Article 336 CCP, addressed to the higher-ranking prosecutor (Article 336 CCP and further details are available, for example, on [coduri.juridice.ro](https://coduri.juridice.ro/codul-de-procedura-penala/index.php/category/partea-speciala/titlul-i-urmarirea-penala/capitolul-vii-plangerea-impotriva-masurilor-si-actelor-de-urmarire-penala/);
– motions and objections before the judge in the preliminary chamber, including a request to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence under Article 102 CCP;
– ultimately, after domestic remedies have been exhausted, an application to the European Court of Human Rights if the search amounted to a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private life and home (practical guidance on Article 8 of the Convention can be found, for example, in the guides published by the European Court and by the European Institute of Romania, accessible via [hudoc.echr.coe.int](https://hudoc.echr.coe.int) and [ier.gov.ro](https://ier.gov.ro/)).
10. Conclusion: you cannot control the search, but you can build your defence
A home search is, by its nature, a highly unbalanced moment: the State enters your private space by force, and you are confronted with a measure that you cannot stop. At the same time, such a measure leaves a clear paper trail: the warrant, the written record, the inventory of seized items, any subsequent correspondence with the prosecutor and the courts. All of this can be scrutinised in detail by your lawyer to determine whether the search was lawful and proportionate.
In many cases, an effective defence is not only about explaining “what happened”, but also about examining “how the evidence was obtained”, including whether the authorities complied with the legal safeguards. This is why, in Romanian criminal procedure, the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence (Article 102 CCP) and complaints against investigative acts (Article 336 CCP) are key tools for protecting the right to a fair trial.
If you have been the target of a home search, the most important decision you can make is to contact a criminal defence lawyer as soon as possible, so that they can analyse the documents, identify any irregularities and build a long-term defence strategy tailored to your case.