Article L229-1 of the Internal Security Code allows the government to perform home visits and seizures at specific locations if there are strong reasons to believe that the location is regularly used by someone whose actions pose a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of terrorism. This applies if the person is known to interact with individuals or groups involved in terrorism or supports a terrorist ideology. Legal interpretations from the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation have clarified that the government’s request can be based solely on a document from intelligence services, known as a "white note," as long as it contains specific and detailed information. The judge overseeing such cases must base their decision strictly on the facts presented, without adding interpretations or assumptions. If there are serious disputes, the appellate judge may ask the government to provide further evidence. The case in question arose when the criminal chamber sought to clarify whether the administrative authority, which was defending against an appeal and a legal challenge under Article L229-3 of the Internal Security Code, could independently provide additional information to the appellate judge to support the validity of its request. In this instance, the prefect of Gironde submitted a request on June 7, 2024, asking the judge of freedoms and detention for permission to conduct a visit and seizure at the home and vehicle of Ms. Z, citing Article L229-1 to prevent potential terrorist acts. The judge approved the request on June 14, and the operation took place on June 20, 2024, resulting in the seizure of various items. Ms. Z then appealed the decision and challenged the conduct of the operations. The first president of the appellate court, in an order dated May 19, 2025, upheld the original decision and dismissed the challenge against the operations. The appeal focused on whether the "white note" from the intelligence services, which was the foundation of the administration’s request and the judge's approval, could be supplemented by the administration itself to help the appellate judge assess the legality and validity of the decision and the operations. As previously stated, the administration can base its request solely on the "white note" if the facts are specific and detailed, and the judge must rely only on those facts without interpretation. However, if there is serious disagreement, the appellate judge can ask the administration to provide additional evidence. The Court of Cassation clarified that the administration may also provide additional information on its own initiative, but only if it is intended to clarify the facts already mentioned in the original request and is subject to debate. This is important because the additional information should not be used to justify the decision based on new, unrelated facts, and the involved parties must be able to discuss these facts. The criminal chamber ruled that in this case, the appellate judge was justified in reviewing the original decision based on the additional information provided by the administration, as it was not claimed that the new information referred to facts outside the original request. Ms. Z had the opportunity to address the content of the note in her arguments and during the court proceedings. This decision reinforces the balance between the administration's need to provide thorough justification and the rights of individuals to challenge such actions in court.