Police Agency: "Preliminary Hearing for Search Warrants Must Be Careful... Hinders Investigation Speed"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The police have officially expressed concerns that the 'face-to-face hearing system for search and seizure warrants' and the 'electronic information execution plan' being introduced by the Supreme Court could "hinder the promptness of investigations and therefore require careful review."

On the 21st, when the Ministry of the Interior and Safety's Police System Improvement Advisory Committee is scheduled to announce recommendations on police control measures, the police flag is fluttering in the wind at the National Police Agency in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. The advisory committee will release the recommendations on this day. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

On the 24th, the National Police Agency made this statement in response to the Supreme Court's legislative notice of the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Rules, which aims to strengthen the requirements and control measures for search and seizure. The National Police Agency argued, "The face-to-face hearing system with judges before issuing warrants is an important matter related to compulsory investigation procedures," and added, "This should be stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, not in the subordinate Criminal Procedure Rules." They also pointed out, "If suspects or informants are interrogated before the warrant is issued, there is a risk of leaking investigation details or exposing the identity of whistleblowers, which could compromise the confidentiality of investigations."

According to the National Police Agency, the police currently undergo a three-step process before obtaining a warrant: ▲approval by team or division chiefs and review by examiners ▲prosecutor's request review ▲court's issuance review. The police view that adding a face-to-face hearing with a judge would excessively increase the number of procedures, potentially hindering the promptness of investigations. The National Police Agency stated, "The amendment requires a pre-established execution plan for analyzing seized electronic information, including search terms and target periods," and added, "Since criminals commonly use slang, codes, or intentional typos, it will generally be difficult to specify search terms in advance."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.