比较法视野下刑事电子数据取证的困境及完善
Keywords:
电子数据；侦查取证；刑事诉讼法修订；立法完善Abstract
刑事电子数据取证立法的缺失带来司法实践中的诸多困境，如取证主体不明确、取证范围过宽，非法证据排除规则缺失、一体式收集程序所引发的公民隐私权、财产权侵害问题等。借鉴域外合理经验，结合我国司法实际，未来修法时应注重明确电子数据的取证主体、限制取证范围，完善取证审批程序及救济途径的规定，并重视取证合法性的建设。
References
[1] 陈卫东. 《刑事诉讼法》第四次修改前瞻[J]. 政法论坛, 2024, 42(1).
[2] 谭秀云. 刑事电子数据取证的法律困境及其程序控制[J]. 时代法学, 2023, 21(5): 56-65.
[3] Serena Quattrocolo. Artificial Intelligence, Computational Modelling and Criminal Proceedings: A Framework for a European Legal Discussion[M]. Cham: Springer, 2020: 73.
[4] 北京市第一中级人民法院（2016）京01刑终592号刑事裁定书.
[5] Olmsted v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 474 (1928).
[6] 温祖德. 调取历史性行动电话基地台位置资讯之令状原则——自美国 Carpenter案之观察[J]. 月旦法学杂志, 2020(2): 98-115.
[7] 龙宗智. 寻求有效取证与保证权利的平衡[J]. 法学, 2016(11): 120-133.
[8] [日]田口守一. 刑事诉讼法(第七版)[M]. 张凌, 于秀峰, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2019: 53.
[9] [日]酒卷匡. 刑事诉讼法[M]. 东京: 有斐阁, 2015: 105.
[10] [日]酒卷匡. 新的证据收集手段——提出命令[J]. 法学家, 2002(1228).
[11] Riley v. California，134 S.Ct.2473，2491.
[12] 褚福民. 电子数据合法性规则体系研究[J]. 证据科学, 2023, 31(4): 5-20.
[13] [日]川出敏裕. 计算机犯罪与侦查程序[J]. 法曹时报, 2001, 53(10).
[14] [日]长沼范良. 高科技犯罪与刑事程序的完善[J]. 法学家, 2003(1257).
[15] [日]酒卷匡. 新的证据收集手段——提出命令[J]. 法学家, 2002(1228).
[16] [日]长沼范良. 通讯监听与通讯企业员工的一般协助义务[J]. 研修, 2003(656).
[17] [德]托马斯·魏根特. 德国刑事程序法原理[M]. 江溯, 等译. 北京: 中国法制出版社, 2021: 37.
[18] Wohlers, “ξ94” (n67): 41.
[19] 51 BGHSt 211 (2007).
[20] 120 BVerfGE 274, 319-20, 327-28 (2008).
[21] Tobias Singelnstein. Verhältnismäßigkeitsanforderungen für strafprozessuale Ermittlungsmaßnahmen[J]. Juristenzeitung, 2012: 601.
[22] 103 BVerfGE 142; 113 BVerfGE 29.
[23] [德]托马斯·魏根特. 德国刑事程序法原理[M]. 江溯, 等译. 北京: 中国法制出版社, 2021: 92.
[24] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations, pts.77 n.13 (2002).
[25] United States v. Bryant, 1995 WL 555700 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 1995).
[26] 王兆鹏. 美国刑事诉讼法[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005: 102.
[27] Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967).
[28] Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
[29] Tamura v. United States, 694 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1982).
[30] United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2005).
[31] 李荣耕. 电磁记录的搜索及扣押[J]. 台大法学论丛, 2012, 41(3): 1089-1134.
[32] 台湾最高法院99年度台上字第4117号判决.
[33] 王兆鹏. 刑事诉讼法讲义[M]. 台北: 元照出版公司, 2009: 86.
[34] 黄朝义. 刑事诉讼法[M]. 台北: 元照出版公司, 2009: 221.
[35] 谢登科. 电子数据的取证主体：合法性与合技术性之间[J]. 环球法律评论, 2018, 40(1): 83-99.
[36] 谢登科. 电子数据的取证主体：合法性与合技术性之间[J]. 环球法律评论, 2018, 40(1): 83-99.
[37] Julian Rivers. Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review[J]. 65 Cambridge Law Journal, 2006: 198.
[38] J. Bomhoff. Balancing the Global and the Local: Judicial Balancing as a Problematic Topic in Comparative (Constitutional) Law[J]. 31 Hastings Int. & Comp. L. Rev., 2008: 555.
[39] United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999).
[40] William J. Stuntz. Local Policing after the Terror[J]. 111 Yale L.J., 2002: 2137, 2184-85.
[41] 彭俊磊. 大数据侦查法治化研究[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2023: 188.
[42] Radina Stoykova. The Right to a Fair Trial as a Conceptual Framework for Digital Evidence Rules in Criminal Investigations[J]. 49 Computer Law & Security Review, 2023: 9.
[43] [英]弗里德里希·冯·哈耶克. 自由秩序原理(上册)[M]. 邓正来, 译. 北京: 三联书店, 1997: 183.
[44] 樊崇义, 李思远. 论电子证据时代的到来[J]. 苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2016, 37(2): 99-106.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 王奕儿
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
For all articles published in Axon Academic Publishing Institute journals, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open-access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download, read, reuse, and quote the paper for free, provided that the original published version is cited. This ensures that the work receives maximum use and exposure, while giving proper credit to the authors.
In exceptional circumstances, articles may be licensed differently. If you have specific conditions (such as those related to funding) that prevent using this license, please notify the journal’s editorial office during submission. Exceptions will be considered at the publisher's discretion.
