法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
強制解密與不自證己罪-以美國法院判決為中心(Digital Technology Compelled Decryption and Self-Incrimination: Referencing U.S. Court Practices)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 朱富美
出版日期: 2022.01
刊登出處: 台灣/法學叢刊第 67 卷 第 1 期/31-65 頁
頁  數: 35 點閱次數: 985
下載點數: 140 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 朱富美
關 鍵 詞: 加密強制解密不自證己罪原則非供述證據科技偵查Fisher
中文摘要: 鑑於數位科技及加密技術之發達及廣泛使用,對於刑事案件而言,如何解密手機、電腦以取得資料,及不自證己罪原則應提供何種檢視標準,在人民與政府權力間之平衡已發生重大變化,成為新的刑事訴訟問題。
雖然檢警持票搜索犯罪嫌疑人之手機、電腦或伺服器,但成功查扣後,因被加密,實際上無法完全執行,加密已經限制政府執行搜索的能力。
在法律上,強制解密涉及不自證己罪原則與強制產生或提交非供述證據,近年來困擾全美之法院與學者。2019 年3 月迄今,麻薩諸塞州、賓州及紐澤西州三州之最高法院先後判決,見解甚為歧異。聯邦及州法院討論集中在能否援引美國聯邦最高法院1976 年Fisher v. United States Fisher 案建立,為解決強制提交文件問題之「行為有無證言性」原則(the act of production doctrine)及「已知行為傳達之內容」原則(foregone conclusion)。
因不自證己罪原則在我國實務之解釋幾乎等於緘默權,亦鮮有探討強制解密之不自證己罪問題,雖少數判決敘及「提出證據資料」與不自證己罪原則,惟多集中在法院未命提出,不能指為違法,或被告雖未提出,不能判決有罪等;就法院決定不令提出證據資料之理由及範圍,尚非明確。本文以美國法院判決發展為主,兼及英國、紐西蘭之現況,取其等足供我國借鏡之處,最後並提出解決建議。
英文關鍵詞: EncryptionCompelled DecryptionSelf-IncriminationFisher v. United StatesScience and Technology InvestigationForegone ConclusionAct of Production
英文摘要: In light of the development and widespread use of digital technology and encryption, the balance between the power of the people and the government has changed significantly in criminal cases as to how to decrypt cell phones and computers to obtain information and what standard of review the doctrine of non-self-incrimination should provide.
Although police may search a suspect’s cell phone, computer, or server with a warrant, successful seizures cannot actually be fully executed because of encryption. Encryption has limited the government’s ability to execute searches.
In legal terms, mandatory decryption, which involves the compulsory production or submission of non-confession evidence, has troubled courts and scholars across the U.S. Since March 2019, the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey have ruled in divergent ways. The federal and state courts have focused on whether they can invoke the act of production doctrine and the “foregone conclusion” principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. United States in 1976 to resolve the issue of compelled production of documents.
In our country, the doctrine of non-self-incrimination has been interpreted to be almost equivalent to the right of silence, and the issue of self-incrimination in the context of compulsory declassification has rarely been explored, although a few decisions have discussed the presentation of evidentiary materials and the doctrine of non-self-incrimination, but not explicitly. This article focuses on the development of judicial practice in the United States and the status quo of the United Kingdom , draws references from their practices, and suggests solutions.
目  次: 前言、問題之提出
壹、加密科技與刑事偵查
貳、不自證己罪原則與非供述證據
參、美國不自證己罪原則與非供述證據
肆、強制解密適用不自證己罪原則之法律疑義
伍、明定強制解密之立法例
陸、結論與建議
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
朱富美,強制解密與不自證己罪-以美國法院判決為中心,法學叢刊,第 67 卷 第 1 期,31-65 頁,2022年01月。
返回功能列