사인(私人)이 수집한 형사사건의 증거와 증거배제법칙
A Study on the Exclusion of Evidence Illegally Obtained by a Private Person
0
조회
0
다운로드
16
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used against the defendant in a criminal procedure. This doctrine is known as the exclusionary rule. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects only against unreasonable searches by government officials and agents as opposed to privately conducted searches. Thus, privately obtained evidence is admissible even if it is acquired by means that would result in exclusion if employed by police. However, invasion of privacy should be evaluated based on the legitimacy of the interest seeking protection, rather than by the identity of the invader. Private parties should be subject to the exclusionary rule, because a private person can infringe the privacy rights of individuals to the same degree as the police. The author of this article agrees with the American authors who argue that the traditional position of the U.S. courts, applying the exclusionary rule only to governmental activity, is outdated and should be modified. The Korean Code of Criminal Procedure adopted the exclusionary rule in 2007. Not only a government official but also a private person has a duty not to violate the rule of due process. Thus, evidence obtained by a private person without observing the rule of due process will be excluded based on the Korean Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, If the use of evidence violates the constitutional right of the accused, the evidence will be excluded from the procedure without regard to the legality of the search or seizure. However, the decision to admit evidence will be determined by balancing the protection of the defendant's constitutional rights and the interests of effective law enforcement.
Abstract
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used against the defendant in a criminal procedure. This doctrine is known as the exclusionary rule. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects only against unreasonable searches by government officials and agents as opposed to privately conducted searches. Thus, privately obtained evidence is admissible even if it is acquired by means that would result in exclusion if employed by police. However, invasion of privacy should be evaluated based on the legitimacy of the interest seeking protection, rather than by the identity of the invader. Private parties should be subject to the exclusionary rule, because a private person can infringe the privacy rights of individuals to the same degree as the police. The author of this article agrees with the American authors who argue that the traditional position of the U.S. courts, applying the exclusionary rule only to governmental activity, is outdated and should be modified. The Korean Code of Criminal Procedure adopted the exclusionary rule in 2007. Not only a government official but also a private person has a duty not to violate the rule of due process. Thus, evidence obtained by a private person without observing the rule of due process will be excluded based on the Korean Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, If the use of evidence violates the constitutional right of the accused, the evidence will be excluded from the procedure without regard to the legality of the search or seizure. However, the decision to admit evidence will be determined by balancing the protection of the defendant's constitutional rights and the interests of effective law enforcement.
참고문헌 (49)
- 강동범, "녹음테이프의 증거능력”, 형사판례연구6", pp.473~ (1999), 박영사
- 김대휘, "사진과 비디오테이프의 증거능력”, 형사판례연구6", pp.~436 (1999), 박영사
- 박미숙, "사인에 의한 비밀녹음테이프의 증거능력”, 형사판례연구11", pp.390~ (2003), 박영사
- 변종필, "사인에 의한 위법수집증거와 그 증거능력", pp.89~ (2000), 고시계
- 신동운, "위법수집증거배제법칙과 나체사진의 증거능력", 법학(서울대학교, 40(2), pp.~358 (1999)
- 이상돈, "후기산업사회에서의 사적 데이터의 보호와 증거금지법칙", 판례연구(고려대 법학연구원, 5, pp.~259
- 조국, "위법수집증거배제법칙", pp.~458 (2005), 박영사
- 천진호, "위법수집증거배제법칙의 私人效", 비교형사법연구, 4(2), pp.14~390 (2002), 한국비교형사법학회
- 하태훈, "사인에 의한 증거수집과 그 증거능력", 형사법연구, 12, pp.~44 (1999)
- 손동권, "형사소송법", pp.554~ (2008), 세창출판사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법", pp.1043~ (2007), 법문사
- 원형식, "형사소송상의 증거사용금지에 관한 연구", 형사정책연구, 9(1), pp.~209 (1998)
- 한영수, "위법수집증거(물)의 배제 또는 사용에 관한 체계적 이론의 형성", 형사법연구, 11, pp.401~ (1999)
- Craig M, "Bradley, The Exclusionary Rule in Germany, Harvard Law Review Vol. 96, No. 5", 1033~ (1983)
- Walter Pakter, "Exclusionary Rules in France, Germany, and Italy, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review", ~
- 김기영, "기본권의 제3자적 효력 - 미국의 경우를 중심으로 -", 고시연구, (11), pp.~50 (1998)
- 김일환, "우리나라 헌법상 기본권의 대사인적 효력 논의의 비판적 고찰", 헌법학연구, 6(2), pp.~69
- 계희열, "기본권의 대사인적 효력", 고시연구, (11), pp.~102 (1996)
- 이노홍, "기본권의 대사인적 효력에 관한 미연방대법원의 심사기준", 미국헌법연구, 15(1), pp.~163 (2004)
- Dallin H. Oaks, "Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure, The University of Chicago Law Review", 668~ (1970)
- David L, "DeNinno, Private Searches and Seizures: An Application of the Public Function Theory, George Washington Law Review", ~343 (1980)
- Harvey L, "Ziff, Seizures by Private Parties: Exclusion in Criminal Cases, Stanford Law Review", ~ (1967)
- LaFave, "Israel", King, pp.2000, ~125
- Miller, "Dawson", Dix, The Police Function(제6판), Foundation Press, 2000[DOI]
- Monica R. Shah, "The Case for a Statutory Suppression Remedy to Regulate Illegal Private Party Searches in Cyberspace, Columbia Law Review", ~250 (2005)
- David A, "Sklansky, The Private Police, UCLA Law Review", ~1231 (1999)
- Forrest Revere Black, "Burdeau v. McDowell - A Judicial Milepost on the Road to Absolutism, Boston University Law Review", ~32 (1932)
- T. Robert Lacour, "Admissibility Of Evidence Unlawfully Seized By Private Persons, Loyola Law Review", ~187 (1968)
- Marco Caffuzi, "Private Police and Personal Privacy: Who's Guarding the Guards”, New York Law School Law Review", ~246 (1996)
- 하태영, "개정 형사소송법 제308조의2 위법수집증거배제법칙의 법적 의미와 적용범위", 형사법연구, 19(4), pp.157~198 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- James Neal Hutchinson, "Jr., Evidence Illegally Seized By a Private Party Excluded From Civil Proceeding, University of Florida Law Review", ~167 (1974)
- Rollin A, "Van Broekhoven, The Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule to Civil Cases, Baylor Law Review", ~ (1967)
- 정규상, "違法蒐集證據의 證據能力", 민사소송, 9(2), pp.75~90 (2005), 한국민사소송법학회
- Zelinski, "State Action and Constraints on Store Detectives, Criminal Justice Journal", ~ (1980)
- Laurel Ward, Ybarra v. Illinois, "Any Person Present’ Search Warrants Contravene the Fourth Amendment, Criminal Justice Journal", ~ (1980)
- Edward H. Freeman, "Computer Hackers and Search and Seizure: United States v. Jarret, Information System Security", 240~ (2007)
- Larry W. Jones, Walter v, "United States: Limiting the Burdeau Shield, Criminal Justice Journal", ~ (1981)
- Andres A. Munoz, United States v. Jarret, "New York Law School Law Review", 412~ (2004)
- Susan E. Pfeifer, "Unreasonable Pirvate Searches and Seizures and the Exclusionary Rule, American University Law Review", 408~ (1967)
- Malcom Wilkey, "The Exclusionary Rule: Why Suppress Valid Evidence?, JUDICATURE", ~216 (1978)
- 신동운, "판례분석 형사소송법", pp.1005~ (2007), 법문사
- 신양균, "형사소송법(제2판", pp.683~ (2004), 법문사
- 하태훈, "사인이 비밀리에 녹음한 녹음테이프의 증거능력”, 형사판례연구8", pp.523~524 (2000), 박영사
- 심희기, "형사소송법의 쟁점", pp.385~ (2003), 삼영사
- 하태훈, "사인이 비밀리에 녹음한 녹음테이프의 증거능력", 형사판례연구, 8, pp.~502 (2000)
- 윤종행, "적법절차를 따르지 아니하고 수집한 압수물의 증거능력 - 대판 2007. 11. 15, 2007도3061() 공직선거법위반 -", 형사법연구, 19(4), pp.329~354 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 조국, "위법수집증거배제법칙의 채택" (2007), 법률신문
- 안성수, "위법수집증거배제법칙" (2007), 법률신문
- Notes, "Private Assumption of the Police Function under the Fourth Amendment, Boston University Law Review", ~473 (1971)