偵查機關調取歷史性行動電話基地臺位置資訊之合憲性審查──從美國聯邦最高法院判決檢視我國法制

Historical Cell Site Location Information and Privacy: An Examination of the Taiwanese Current Norm

美國聯邦最高法院於Carpenter v. United States案，針對偵查機關蒐集調取個人行動電話產出之歷史性行動電話基地臺位置紀錄資訊，具有深度揭露性、全面觸及性及蒐集資訊自動性及不可避免性之本質，縱使該等資訊交由第三人蒐集、儲存、持有及控制之，個人對於資訊仍保有合理之隱私期待，因而當國家蒐集取得此類資訊時，構成增修條文第4條搜索，國家應遵循令狀原則，本於相當理由核發之令狀，方得為之。至於我國法制關於歷史性行動電話基地臺位置資訊，屬於通聯紀錄，並訂有通訊保障及監察法第11條之1之規範保護之。然從美國Carpenter案之最新見解及論述，反思我國調取歷史性行動電話基地臺位置資訊之調取令之立法，應重新思考修正之以充分保障人民之隱私權及秘密通訊自由。

The United States Supreme Court, in 2018, made a landmark decision concerning the constitutionality of a court-ordered subpoena requesting a third party to turn over historical cell site location information to the investigation of an accused party.The Supreme Court considered that an individual holds a reasonable expectation of privacy towards personal historical cell site location information and held that a court order (subpoena duces tecum) compelling a third party to turn over an individual’s historical cell site location information constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment to The Constitution of The United States, and as such, is subject to the warrant requirements. Under this same contextual analysis, an individual’s personal historical cell site location information is subject to the protection of the Republic of China (Taiwan) Constitution Article 12.Under the Communication Security and Surveillance Law, an access warrant for personal historical cell site location information is not subject to the probable cause standard. Additionally, certain felonies are exempted from the requirement that an access warrant be issued by a judge, instead allowing the prosecutor to issue the warrant. This paper suggests that these issues should be reexamined and amended to protect the privacy and freedom of private communications of all individuals.