전자정보 압수수색에 관한 우리나라와 미국주요 판례 법리의 비교 및 그 시사점 -참여권 및 관련성 법리를 중심으로-

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of Korean and U.S. judicial doctrines governing the search and seizure of digital evidence, with particular attention to participatory rights and the doctrine of relevance. Both jurisdictions seek to balance investigative necessity with the protection of individual privacy in the digital context, yet they pursue this objective through distinct doctrinal and procedural mechanisms. U.S. courts have adapted traditional Fourth Amendment doctrines, such as searches incident to arrest and the plain view doctrine, and have strictly enforced the particularity requirement for warrants authorizing electronic searches. Although U.S. law does not recognize a right comparable to Korea’s right of the person subject to seizure to participate in the execution of a search warrant, alternative safeguards have been developed, including the use of independent filter teams, court-appointed special masters, and other taint or segregation mechanisms to prevent overbroad or exploratory searches. Drawing on this comparison, the article offers several implications for Korean law. It argues, first, for the need to strengthen substantive and procedural requirements governing smartphone searches. Second, it emphasizes that Korea’s participatory procedures function as a core safeguard against exploratory searches and should be effectively institutionalized through legislation, while cautioning against their indiscriminate extension to unrelated third parties. Third, it contends that the concept of “relevance” articulated by the Korean Supreme Court should be interpreted more clearly with reference to the alleged offense specified in the warrant.