论电子数据搜查、扣押的取证范围限定  

Analysis of restrictions on electronic data search and seizure

作　　者：吴桐[1] WU Tong(Law School,Minzu University of China,Beijing 100081,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]中央民族大学法学院,北京100081

出　　处：《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》2024年第6期250-262,共13页Journal of Chongqing University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：2020年司法部法治建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目“刑事立法行刑竞合下的行刑反转”(20SFB4036)。

摘　　要：电子数据的出现改变了传统搜查、扣押的适用逻辑,先搜查后扣押的行为顺序已经无法有效应对电子数据的取证活动。为了保障电子数据的真实性和完整性,当前我国相关电子数据取证规范均规定“能够扣押电子数据原始储存介质的,原则上应对其进行扣押”。在司法实践中,侦查人员往往将其理解为“能够扣押储存介质的,原则上应扣押电子数据的储存介质”。这就导致原本是针对电子数据完整性和真实性的规范要求反成为了授权侦查人员实施“概括性扣押”的依据。先概括性扣押再全面搜查成为电子数据取证的实践常态。虽然概括性取证能够有效应对电子数据对侦查实践提出的诸多挑战,但不受任意搜查、扣押是公民在刑事诉讼中享有的基本权利。概括性取证的出现难免会引发电子数据取证方式与搜查、扣押对象特定性要求之间的矛盾冲突。在比较法上,日本和美国刑事诉讼根据其对搜查、扣押概念的不同理解,形成了限制概括性扣押和限制概括性搜查这两种改革方案。前者坚持物理标准对电子数据取证的限制作用,主张应限制侦查人员在物理空间内的扣押行为。这样既可以保障数据持有人的财产权,也维持了搜查、扣押应是公开侦查措施的基本定位。后者重视事前令状审查对侦查措施的授权和规制功能。只要侦查行为符合搜查、扣押的标准,就可以通过中立法官签发搜查、扣押令状来赋予其正当性,与其行为针对的是有体物还是无体物并无直接关系。限制概括性搜查既能够保障数据持有人的隐私权不受过度侵犯,也可以通过排除非法证据的制裁后果来威慑违法侦查行为。如何限定电子数据搜查、扣押的范围是我国侦查程序法治化进程中必须面对的难题。在规范层面上,目前电子数据取证的程序规则尚未得到应有的重视。对此,我国当前需�The advent of electronic data has changed the application of traditional search and seizure,the way of search firstly and then seizure has been unable to effectively respond to electronic data collection activities.In order to protect the authenticity and integrity of electronic data,China’s relevant electronic data collection norms provide that“the original storage medium of electronic data should be seized in principle if it could be seized”.In judicial practice,investigators often understand it as“if the storage medium could be seized,electronic data storage medium should be seized in principle”.This leads to the requirements originally aimed at the integrity and authenticity of electronic data becoming the basis for authorizing investigators to carry out“general seizures”.General seizure firstly and then search comprehensively has become the practice norm for electronic data collection.Although general collection can effectively respond to the many challenges posed by electronic data investigation practice,freedom from arbitrary search and seizure is a fundamental right enjoyed by citizens in criminal proceedings.The emergence of general collection will inevitably lead to the contradiction between the method of electronic data collection and the specificity of search and seizure objects.In comparative jurisdictions,Japanese and American criminal proceedings have formed two reform programs by their different understanding of the concepts of search and seizure:one is restricting general seizure and another is restricting general search.The former insists on the role of physical standards in limiting electronic data collection,and advocates that investigators’seizures in physical space should be restricted.This can protect the property rights of data holders and also maintain the basic position that search and seizure should be public investigative measures.The latter attaches importance to the authorizing and regulating function of prior warrant review on investigative measures.As long as the in

关 键 词：电子数据 概括性扣押 搜查 个人信息保护 知情同意 

分 类 号：D915.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]