| 英文摘要 |
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. |
