「秘密」搜索扣押第三方業者數位證據──鬆動最高法院Hibox案基準

“Secret”Searches and Detains Digital Evidence from Third-Party Providers: Loosening the Benchmark in the Supreme Court’s Hibox Case

現代人手機不離身，暴露大量足跡於網際網路已屬常態，對偵查機關而言，掌握數位證據將提高犯罪追訴效率，具有高度調取價值。是以，傳統強制處分搜索扣押正面臨數位轉型，逐步從公開執行局部轉為秘密偵查。針對偵查機關於第三方業者處搜索扣押被告數位證據，最高法院106年度臺非字第259號刑事判決肯認被告之隱私權受到侵害，且將秘密通訊自由保障範圍限於過去已結束的通訊內容，對於調取通訊已結束之郵件內容，應適用搜索扣押規定。然而，依現行法規定，被告原則上有搜索在場權及受通知權，國家倘逕行「秘密」搜索扣押，將鬆動Hibox案判決基準。展望未來立法芻議，法規主管機關應兼顧保障被告救濟權與國家追訴犯罪之憲法任務，參酌比較法例，審慎思辨第三人受搜索扣押時的暫緩通知被告規定。

With the increasing attachment to mobile devices in modern times, it has become a norm for the public to expose a significant amount of footprints on the Internet. For the investigating authorities, the availability of digital evidence will increase the efficiency of crime prosecution and have a high value for investigation. As a result, traditional compulsory search and seizure is undergoing a digital transformation, gradually moving from public enforcement to covert investigation. Regarding the search and seizure of digital evidence by investigating agencies from third parties, the Supreme Court, in its 106th Judgment No. 259, affirmed that the defendant’s right to privacy had been violated and limited the scope of the protection of the freedom of secret communication to the contents of past communications and that the search and seizure requirement should apply to the retrieval of the contents of closed emails. However, under the current law, the defendant has the right to search in the presence and to be notified of the search in principle, and if the state should seize the“secret”search, it would loosen the basis of the Hibox decision. In the future, the authorities should consider the constitutional mandate to protect the defendant’s right to remedy and the state’s right to prosecute crimes, and carefully consider the provision of a temporary stay of notice to the defendant in the event of a search and seizure of a third party, taking into account comparative legislation.