형사절차에서 지오펜스 영장의 허용성과 입법방안 - 미국의 지오펜스 영장 판례를 비교 분석을 중심으로

This study examines the legal controversies surrounding geofence warrants in the United States and analyzes their implications in comparison with the Korean framework governing investigative access to location information. Centering on three representative cases—United States v. Smith (2024), United States v. Chatrie (2024), and Jones v. The State (2025)—the analysis addresses judicial interpretations of the prohibition on general warrants, as well as the constitutional requirements of particularity and probable cause. While the courts uniformly acknowledged that geofence warrants constitute “searches” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, they adopted divergent positions regarding their constitutionality, evaluating them in light of the third-party doctrine, the sufficiency of particularity and probable cause, and the adequacy of tiered procedural safeguards. In Korea, the Protection of Communications Secrets Act and the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information already codify the warrant requirement, the principle of subsidiarity, and the requirement of particularity, thereby providing a normative foundation for the interpretive recognition of geofence-style investigations. Nevertheless, because the existing statutory framework does not presuppose a multi-layered disclosure regime such as Google’s three-step procedure, legislative refinements are necessary to define the scope of application and to establish appropriate oversight mechanisms. Rather than categorically foreclosing the adoption of geofence warrants, this study explores the potential for conditional incorporation into the Korean legal system and proposes legislative and interpretive standards designed to reconcile investigative efficacy with the protection of fundamental rights.