犯罪偵查中通訊內容的調取

The Obtainment of Communications During Criminal Investigation

為了偵查犯罪，執法機關會向通訊服務提供業者調取犯罪嫌疑人的通訊內容，如電子郵件。最高法院在陳昭全案中判定，人們就儲存於通訊服務提供業者處的電子郵件，享有合理隱私期待，執法機關必須要取得法官所核發的扣押裁定，才能予以調取。美國聯邦國會則針對此種型態的強制處分，制定有已儲存通訊監察法（SCA），強化對於人民隱私的保護。美國聯邦第六巡迴法院也在Warshak案中也判定，人們對於儲存在通訊系統上的電子郵件，享有聯邦憲法第四增修條文的隱私權，第三人理論在此應有所限制。陳昭全案及Warshak案的結論，值得肯定。我們認為，人們對於儲存在通訊系統或設備上的電子郵件，所得主張的是一般隱私，不是通訊隱私，所以電子郵件的調取，應依通訊保障及監察法以外的法律（如刑事訴訟法）為之。再者，寄抵收件人帳號，尚未讀取的電子郵件，同樣已經不在通訊隱私所涵蓋的範圍內。最後，雖然最高法院判定，調取特定人儲存於通訊業者處的電子郵件，應依刑訴法第133條之1的扣押裁定為之，但是相關條文顯然無法完全適用於電子郵件的調取。刑訴法的相關條文應予修正，在修正前，相關條文的解釋及適用，需要依照資訊的本質有所調整。

In order to investigate crimes, the law enforcement may obtain the contents of targets’ communications, like e-mails, from communications service providers. The evidence-gathering has been the focus of the practical and theoretical discussion. The Supreme Court held that, in the Chen case, people have reasonable expectations of privacy in e-mail stored in communications service providers, and the law enforcement has to obtain warrants from courts in advance. The U.S. congress enacted “the Stored Communications Act” to enhance the protection of people’s privacy. The Sixth Circuit Court, in Warshak, held that people have privacy rights of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the warrant requirement applies to the obtainment of communications. In addition, the application of the third party doctrine should be limited. The conclusions of the Chen case and Warshak are acceptable. This article argues that people have general privacy, rather than communication privacy, in those e-mails stored in third parties’ service. Therefore, the Communications Security and Surveillance Act should not apply to the obtainment of e-mails. In order to obatin e-mails stored in communications service providers, the law enforcement should apply for warrants according to the Code of Crminal Procedure. Moreover, communication privacy protects communications from the scope of senders’ control to recipients’. Thus, those e-mails which arrive at the communications service and have not been read are out of the protection of communication privacy. Last, although the Supreme Court held that Article 133-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the obtainment of e-mails stored in communications service providers, due to the nature of e-mails, related provisions do not conform to the obtainment of e-mails. The Code of Criminal Procedure should to be revised accordingly; and, before the revision, related provisions should be interpreted and applied based on character of information.