國家植入間諜程式遠端搜索之法制

The Norm of Government Remote Access to Search: A Normative Perspective of Taiwanese law

科技進步使得犯罪者利用電腦等科技裝置在暗網中犯罪，同時利用網路科技隱身於虛擬世界，隱藏自己身分及所在位置，造成偵查困境，因此，美國在2016年於聯邦刑事訴訟規則增訂遠端搜索，增訂目的在於解決偵查機關不知電腦資訊設備或媒介硬體所在位置，妨礙政府偵查特定目標對象或目標電腦資訊設備之位置，以免聯邦法院產生核發搜索票之困難，因而承認（跨轄區）遠端搜索之需求及對於多個管轄區域內多個電腦設備，進行遠端搜索之法制需要。
為能妥善解決犯罪匿名化、暗網化衍生之偵查困境，參酌先進國家立法趨勢均已承認遠端搜索或線上搜索，本文從美國法觀點，深入分析美國聯邦刑事訴訟規則關於核發遠端搜索令狀，以搜尋電腦資訊設備（含設備所在位置、資訊設備內容性資訊）之法制。藉由分析美國國家植入間諜程式遠端搜索之科技及執法發展、司法實務對於國家植入間諜程式遠端搜索之憲法定位及闡述增訂遠端搜索條款之新法及規範評析。最後，本文本於我國憲法誡命之法律保留原則，認為應由立法機關明定授權國家植入間諜程式遠端搜索之詳細規範架構，提供未來可能之規範建議，在兼顧人權保障之前提下，同時促進執法利益。

Computer technology today provides criminals with the ability to cloak themselves in the dark web, where, with their true identities and locations concealed, they are more emboldened and freer to commit their crimes. This new trend, referred to as“Going Dark”, impedes government efforts to track criminals, identify their true locations, and collect evidence of their criminal activity. Thus, in 2016, the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended to allow law enforcement to remotely access and search a target's computer or electronic storage media where the media or information has been concealed through technological means. This new amendment allows the government to ''hack'' into the suspect's electronic devices in order to determine identity and location, as well as to search the content of the devices.
This article will analyze this ''remote access to search'' amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, we will seek to illustrate the constitutionality of remote access to search from a U.S. Constitutional perspective. The United States federal courts’prevailing opinions hold that the ''remote access to search'' qualifies as a constitutional search, and is thus confined by the requirements of the United States Fourth Amendment. As a result, the remote access to search amendment could be a legislative model for Taiwanese criminal procedure, as we are facing the same types of problems during our investigations. Eventually, this article could help to provide a basic structure for new law, including warrant requirements, particularity requirements, minimization principle, the requirement to have exhausted all other investigative techniques, warrant execution period, reasonable efforts to give notice requirement, receipt for information seized or copied, delayed notice, the ex post judicial review, the exclusionary rule of evidence if the application procedure violated the warrant requirements, that both serve the needed public interest and protect the rights of our citizens.