Court: "Electronic Information Warrants Must Be Reviewed Separately" vs Prosecution: "Technically Impossible"

National Warrant Judges: "Judicial Control Needed for Electronic Information Seizure"
Prosecution: "It Means Self-Regulation of Seizure of Crime-Related Information"

At a meeting attended by warrant judges from courts across the country, the view was raised that electronic information devices such as mobile phones should have separate search and seizure warrants and warrant reviews. In response, the prosecution argued that this would make it impossible to seize evidence related to crimes.

On the 2nd, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office issued a statement saying, "If searches of storage devices are blocked without knowing the location or method where electronic information is stored, it will become impossible to seize evidence related to crimes."

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office also stated that there is no problem because the right of the person subject to seizure to participate is guaranteed during the search of electronic information such as mobile phones.

The office explained, "To prevent the seizure of information unrelated to the crime during the search of electronic information before seizure, the right of the person subject to seizure to participate is already guaranteed, and their participation is practically established. If information unrelated to the crime is seized, the person subject to seizure can request judicial review through a quasi-appeal, and even if they do not file such an appeal, the evidence cannot be admitted in subsequent trial procedures, so there is no reason for investigative agencies to seize it."

It added, "It is also technically impossible to restrict the scope or method of electronic evidence seizure in advance. Therefore, the claim that introducing an in-person hearing system can prevent indiscriminate seizure of electronic information by investigative agencies is not valid."

The Court Administration Office held an online meeting of warrant judges from courts nationwide the day before, titled ‘Online Meeting of Warrant Judges for Practical Discussions on Search and Seizure Warrants.’ The warrant judges attending the meeting discussed problems and solutions arising when investigative agencies such as the prosecution and police seize electronic information stored in mobile phones.

The warrant judges focused on the issue of investigative agencies requesting warrants by listing only ‘mobile phones’ as the target of search and seizure. It is reported that they reached a consensus on the need for court control over the seizure and search of electronic information such as mobile phone call contents and text records.

In particular, regarding mobile phones, there was a consensus among warrant judges on introducing a new ‘search and seizure warrant for electronic information’ that specifies the period and content of call records and text messages in detail when investigative agencies apply for search and seizure.

Additionally, the warrant judges discussed a proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Rules that would allow judges to conduct face-to-face interrogations with parties involved in the case before issuing search and seizure warrants.

In response, the prosecution opposed this, arguing that the court misunderstands the search (exploration) conducted before seizure as equivalent to seizure itself and intends to control the search itself.

The prosecution pointed out that if the court’s face-to-face hearing procedure for search and seizure warrants proceeds, delays in the process are inevitable due to scheduling hearings and preparing interrogation records. They also argued that with more people involved in the procedure, the possibility of investigative information leaks increases, which in turn raises the likelihood of evidence being destroyed.

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