초록 열기/닫기 버튼
과거 우리 대법원은 이른바 ‘성질‧형상 불변론’에 입각하여, 적법한 압수‧수색 절차에 따르지 않고 취득한 증거에 대하여도 제한 없이 증거능력을 인정하였기 때문에 압수‧수색의 요건이나 압수‧수색 영장의 특정, 영장의 효력 범위 등에 대하여 사법적 심사가 이루어질 계기가 거의 존재하지 아니 하였다. 따라서 지금까지는 압수‧수색 영장의 특정 문제, 영장의 효력이 미치는 범위 등에 대하여 실무계는 물론 학계에서조차 거의 논의가 이루어지지 아니 하였다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 2008년 개정 형사소송법이 시행될 즈음에 대법원은 압수물에 대하여도 위법수집증거 배제법칙이 적용되어야 함을 선언하였고, 뒤이어 잇따른 판례들은 이러한 원칙을 더욱 강화하는 방향으로 나아가고 있다. 그리하여 이제는 적법한 압수‧수색이 적법하게 이루어졌는지 여부를 판단함에 있어, 압수‧수색 영장의 특정 문제뿐만 아니라 수색의 장소, 압수의 대상 등 영장의 효력이 미치는 범위에 대한 논의가 반드시 필요하게 되었다. 본 논문에서는 미국 연방대법원의 판결을 중심으로, 우선 압수‧수색 영장의 특정과 관련한 문제를 검토하고 이어, 영장의 시간적, 장소적, 대상적 범위 등에 관하여 구체적으로 살펴 본다.
In 2007, Korea's Supreme Court held that all forms of illegally seized evidence are, in principle, inadmissible, overruling the precedents that all kinds of evidences were admissible even though they were obtained without due process of law. Furthermore, the Korea's revised Criminal Procedure Act which came into effect from January first, 2008 explicitly introduced the exclusionary rule. Before Korea's Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule, there had been no opportunity in which the judicial review had been made on the scope of legal effect of the search-seizure warrant. However, it is nowadays very important for the police officers and prosecutors to observe the due process of law during the execution of the search-seizure warrant because the illegally obtained evidences are likely to be found inadmissible in the court. Therefore, we need to discuss the scope of the legal effect of the warrant to decide whether the execution of the warrant is lawful or not. The particularity requirement of the warrant must be solved before we discuss the scope of legal effect of the search-seizure warrant. The Fourth Amendment of the US constitution requires that the warrant must set forth the location of the place to be searched with reasonable particularity. The things to be seized, like the place to be searched, must be particularly described in the warrant. The most difficult particularity problems arise where the warrant describes some items in detail, and it includes a catch-all clause in Korea as well as in America. The rationale of the particularity requirement respecting places and things is to control the discretion of the executing officer. In this article, I, first of all, addressed the issue surrounding the particularity requirement in the Supreme Court of the United States, which would have important implication for Korean courts and commentators. Secondly, I explored the scope of the legal effect of the search-seizure warrant. The scope and the duration of a search relates directly to harmony between the privacy expectation and the finding of the substantial truth, thus limiting the officers' discretion throughout the search. A warrant authorizing a search of "premises" or a particular street number is generally deemed to cover, not only the basic residence, but also the grounds and other structures that are found within the curtilage of the house. And, in general, a warrant authorizing a search of a premises justifies a search of the occupants' personal effects that are plausible repositories for the objects specified in the warrant. The scope of a search is limited to places in which the items described in the warrant may be reasonably concealed. Thus, it would be unreasonable to search for handgun nine inches long inside a utility bill or bank statement envelope, or inside any other container too small to hold the weapon. The scope of the legal effect of the warrant in terms of time is an issue as to whether a search for the items which were delivered at the place searched is allowed after issue of the warrant. Generally, an item which arrives after the issue of the warrant would be outside the scope of the search authorized by the warrant. However, I think that is reasonable to accept the anticipatory warrant that is wisely recognized in the Supreme Court of the United States. I expect that a lively discussion of the scope of a search pursuant to the search-seizure warrant will take place among judges, prosecutors and commentators in Korea following this paper.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
search-seizure warrant. particularity requirement, curtilage, intensity of search, anticipatory warrant
