미국 수정헌법 제4조의 영장발부 요건인 ‘상당한 이유(Probable Cause)’에 대한 연구 = A Study on Probable Cause, the Warrant Requirements of the 4th Amendment

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In America, the development of criminal justice procedure has been accomplished not through legislation but the case law the Supreme Court has accumulated for decades. The Fourth Amendment has undertaken one of the most significant roles that have guaranteed the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
There are two requirements that must be met before the Fourth Amendment will be applicable in a particular situation. It applies only to governmental action not private one. The conduct must also constitute a search, and the definition of search derives from the concept of privacy. The Fourth Amendment is implicated only when the governmental action intrudes an area in which citizens may reasonably expect privacy.
Probable cause is the measure of justification that applies to full scale intrusions such as searches, seizures, and arrests. In Auguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States, the Supreme Court established a structure for evaluating probable cause based on information supplied by confidential informants. The two-prong test focuses separately on the credibility of the informant and the basis of the knowledge. The traditional two-prong test analysis of probable cause was modified by the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates. While reaffirming the importance of evaluating both the informant’s credibility and the basis of knowledge, the Court abandoned the insistence that the two prongs should be considered as completely distinct elements. The Court newly devised a ‘totality of the circumstances’ approach.
The Fourth Amendment provides that a warrant may be issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. The actual demonstration of probable cause usually comes in the form of a sworn affidavit prepared by the investigating officers and presented to the magistrate.
While a warrant is generally required to authorize the seizure of the things, the seizure of the person, namely arrest, does not generally require a warrant. Warrantless arrest is the rule, and arrest by warrant is the exception. The police can arrest a suspect without warrant as long as the arrest occurs in a public place and there is probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime. However, Arrest warrant is required where the arrest occurs in a dwelling rather than a public place. Where the police seek to arrest a suspect in the residence of a third party, they must obtain a search warrant to enter and search the residence for the suspect.
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s warrantless acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court declined to extend the ‘third-party doctrine’, —a doctrine where information disclosed to a third party carries no reasonable expectation of privacy. In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the police officers generally could not, without a warrant, search digital information on the cell phones seized from the defendants as incident to the defendants' arrests. The Court also held that the warrantless search exception following an arrest exists for the purposes of protecting officers’ safety and preserving evidence, neither of which is at issue in the search of digital data. The digital data can not be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone from the network.
The 4th Amendment equally requires ‘probable cause’ as the measure of justification for search, seizure and arrest warrant. In Korean criminal justice procedure, ‘suspicious circumstances that the suspect may has committed a crime’ is required to justify the issuance of a search and seizure warrant. Considering the importance of protection in the area of privacy and property rights recently, probable cause is also required to ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 심희기, "형사소송법 판례 150선(제4판)" 홍문사 2014
• 2 정승환, "형사소송법" 박영사 2018
• 3 정웅석, "형사소송법" 대명출판사 2015
• 4 임동규, "형사소송법" 法文社 2013
• 5 이은모, "형사소송법" 박영사 2015
• 6 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2017
• 7 김성룡, "현행압수･수색 제도의 문제점과개선방안" 4 : 2011
• 8 노정환, "현행 압수수색제도에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 실무상 문제점을 중심으로 -" 법조협회 59 (59): 5-57, 2010
• 9 민만기, "현행 압수ㆍ수색 절차상 plain view 원칙의 적용 가능성과 입법론적 검토" 법학연구원 25 (25): 135-170, 2013
• 10 하태훈, "영장제도의 현황 및 개선방안 연구" 국가인권위원회 2013
• 11 최우구, "영장에 의하지 아니하는 강제처분의 특수문제로써 스마트폰에 저장된 정보에 대한 수색 - Riley v. California 판결 평석 -" 안암법학회 (47) : 337-372, 2015
• 12 최준혁, "영장에 의하지 아니하는 강제처분" 한국경찰법학회 9 (9): 57-87, 2011
• 13 홍영기, "영장 없는 압수·수색의 합법성 기준 - 형사소송법 제216조 제1항 제2호 해석론" 법학연구원 (63) : 115-150, 2011
• 14 이상윤, "영미법" 박영사 2005
• 15 김범식, "영 ･미의 디지털 증거 압수 ･수색에 관한 소고" 대검찰청 (45) : 160-193, 2014
• 16 조국, "압수·수색의 합법성 기준 재검토" 한국비교형사법학회 5 (5): 29-782, 2003
• 17 배종대, "신형사소송법 제3판" 홍문사 2013
• 18 신동운, "신형사소송법" 法文社 [경기도] 2015
• 19 이성기, "미국의 체포․수색․압수제도의 이해 - 위법수집증거배제법칙과 명확성 원칙의 관점에서 -" 경찰대학 11 (11): 31-59, 2011
• 20 노승우 ; 조성자, "미국의 법리상 휴대폰의 전자정보의 압수수색과 형사소송법 개정 제안" 비교법학연구소 64 : 269-311, 2021
• 21 김슬기, "미국에서의 정보저장매체의 압수·수색에 관한 연구" 법학연구원 25 (25): 143-167, 2015
• 22 김태명, "미국법상 압수·수색의 법리와 우리나라에 대한 시사점" 법학연구소 27 (27): 257-294, 2015
• 23 노명선, "디지털 증거의 압수ㆍ수색에 관한 판례 동향과 비교법적 고찰" 대검찰청 (43) : 139-194, 2014
• 24 Sean E. Goodison, "“Digital Evidence and the U.S. Criminal Justice System"
• 25 Joshua Dressler, "Understanding Criminal Procedure" West 2013
• 26 Paul Ohm, "The many revolutions of carpenter" 32 (32): 2019
• 27 David Sklancky, "The Fourth Amendment and Common Law" 100 : 2000
• 28 George F. Cole, "The American System of Criminal Justice" Wadsworth 2008
• 29 Craig Hemmens, "Significant Cases in Criminal Procedures" Oxford Univ. Press 2012
• 30 Brent E. Newton, "National Institute for Trial Advocacy" 2011
• 31 Yale Kamisar, "Modern Criminal Procedure" West 2012
• 32 Rolando v. Del Carmen, "Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice" Wadsworth 2010
• 33 Dressler, "Criminal Procedure" West 2010
• 34 Robert M. Bloom, "Criminal Procedure" Wolters Kluwer 2020