論令狀搜索之實然與應然

黃翰義

中文摘要

美國聯邦最高法院認為,憲法第四修正案並不允許空白搜索令狀係在執行搜索或扣押時,或該扣押已被執行後,始被填載完成;而法官如成為執行搜索之一員,則該行為顯然即屬偵查之作為。日本佐賀地方法院認為,要求搜索扣押令狀內應載明搜索扣押之處所,其原因係為保障人民對於處所之居住及管理之權利;而令狀處所之記載,不僅對於令狀人及審核人應予明確,即使一般人閱覽該令狀,亦應使其對於令狀所指「特定而具體之場所」達到容易理解之程度,且應有必要限制在偵查犯罪之最小限度內。

 

Presenting the Scope of Search Warrant: in Practice and in Place

Han-Yi Huang

abstract

The Supreme Court of the U.S. held that a warrant, left blank while executing or filled out after a search and seizure, may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests. However, when the search is undertaken pursuant by a judge, the power to act is apparently upheld as a valid investigation.The district court of sa-ga in Japan recognized that a residence written in the warrant for a search or seizure is based on protecting the right of the people to live and manage in their homes.An essential purpose of a warrant referred to the residence can be exposed to the public, which should be precisely understood without difficulty. However, it is necessary that the act to investigate crime is well within the restrictions under the minimum level.