영장에 의하지 아니하는 강제처분의 특수문제로써 스마트폰에 저장된 정보에 대한 수색 - Riley v. California 판결 평석 -
Special Issues Relating to the Warrantless Search – Search and Seizure of Digital Contents of a Cell Phone - Focusing on Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) -
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Fourth Amendment provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”. As to the interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, ‘reasonableness’ generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant, and that in the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement. In 1914, the Supreme Court first acknowledged the right of the Government to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime, and since that time, it has been well accepted that such a search constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement. This is the so called ‘search incident to arrest’ exception. However, one can argue that modern “smart phones,” a cell phone with a broad range of other functions based on advanced computing capability, largestorage capacity, and Internet connectivity, is distinguishable from a search of any other materials on an arrestee’s body, and gaining access to them is fundamentally different from rifling through someone’s pockets or purse. The case before us, Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional, acknowledg- ing an exception to the exception of ‘search incident to arrest’. The case includes critical issues regarding the privacy rights of the arrestee and the reasonableness of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest, and is very much worth exploring.
Abstract
The Fourth Amendment provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”. As to the interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, ‘reasonableness’ generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant, and that in the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement. In 1914, the Supreme Court first acknowledged the right of the Government to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime, and since that time, it has been well accepted that such a search constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement. This is the so called ‘search incident to arrest’ exception. However, one can argue that modern “smart phones,” a cell phone with a broad range of other functions based on advanced computing capability, largestorage capacity, and Internet connectivity, is distinguishable from a search of any other materials on an arrestee’s body, and gaining access to them is fundamentally different from rifling through someone’s pockets or purse. The case before us, Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional, acknowledg- ing an exception to the exception of ‘search incident to arrest’. The case includes critical issues regarding the privacy rights of the arrestee and the reasonableness of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest, and is very much worth exploring.
참고문헌 (25)
- 배종대, "신형사소송법" (2013), 홍문사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법" (2009), 박영사
- 차용석, "형사소송법연구" (1983), 박영사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법" (2014), 法文社
- 김학신, "미국의 디지털 범죄와 헌법상 영장주의", 미국헌법연구, 20(1), pp.255~287 (2009), 미국헌법학회
- 민영성, "영장주의의 예외인정과 명인법리", 부산대학교 법학연구, 40(1) (1999)
- 이윤호, "스마트폰 내부 정보 추출 방법", 정보보호학회논문지, 23(6), pp.1057~1067 (2013), 한국정보보호학회[DOI]
- 이정훈, "디지털 증거 수집과 분석을 위한 스마트폰 포렌식 적용 연구", 정보보호학회논문지, 21(6) (2011)
- 전승수, "디지털 정보에 대한 압수수색영장의 집행- 대법원 2011. 5. 26.자 2009모1190 결정 -", 법조, 61(7), pp.237~276 (2012), 법조협회[DOI]
- 황정인, "영장주의의 본질과 영장제도: 체포제도를 중심으로", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.203~237 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 대법원, "2009모1190 결정", ~ (2011)
- "Riley v. California, 573 U.S", ~ (2014)
- People v. Riley, "WL 475242, D059840", Cal. App. 4 Dist, ~ (2013)
- "Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383", ~ (1914)
- "United States v. Rabinowitz 339 U.S. 56", ~ (1950)
- "Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752", ~ (1969)
- "People v. Diaz, P.3d 501", ~ (2011)
- "Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S 332", ~ (2009)
- "Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113", ~ (1998)
- "United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1", ~ (2013)
- "United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218", ~ (1973)
- "본고 대상 사건의 Brief for Petitioner, On writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal", ~
- "본고 대상 사건의 2014. 4. 29. 연방 대법원 변론 녹취록", ~ (2014)
- "FBI(Fed. Bureau of Investigation), "Crime in the U.S 2012", tbl.29", ~ (2012)
- "Supreme Court rules police cannot search smartphones without warrant", 6.25.자 LA Times, ~ (2014)
