大法官陸續在釋字第 585、603、631 號解釋中已具體指出隱私權乃為人民不可或缺之基本權利，而受憲法第 22 條所保障，並說明個人之資訊隱私權包括了資訊隱私權及資訊自決權，且指出秘密通訊自由乃憲法保障隱私權之具體態樣之一，而人民之隱私是否受憲法隱私權之保障，其判斷標準乃採取隱私之合理期待準則（reasonable expectation of privacy），而此一準則業早已存在於我國通訊保障及監察法上多年，並用來解釋、界定人民之通訊內容是否應受憲法隱私權之保障。其次，因通訊監察（監聽）本質上乃是我國刑事訴訟法上搜索扣押之延伸或特別形式之搜索扣押，足見刑事訴訟法上之搜索所保護之核心法益應與通保法相同均是在保護人民之隱私權，是當討論偵查機關之行為是否構成搜索，其判斷標準除了向來實務或學說上所採取之物理侵入準則（physical trespass doctrine）外，偵查機關也因科技之進步，其偵查方式也越有別於以往，準此，當個案上無法以物理侵入準則判斷偵查機關之行為是否構成搜索時，究竟應如何透過新的解釋方法以突破現有思維以資回應？實值得探討。再者，由於近年來行動電話（cell phone）的普及，且因行動電話能儲存大量之數位資訊（digital information），而行動電話內之數位資訊，除了易有毀損、滅失之特性外，更與個人之隱私權有著重要且密切的關聯性，則偵查機關究竟應依何程序來取得儲存行動電話內之數位資訊實務上亦常發生爭議與困擾，尤其是當偵查機關在執行拘提或逮捕被告、犯罪嫌疑人或執行羈押時對其隨身攜帶之行動電話內所儲存之與犯罪事實有關之數位證據究竟得否以附帶搜索之方式取得？亦頗值得研究。本文試著從公訴蒞庭的經驗，並參考美國聯邦最高法院之相關判決及我國實務之見解，來探求我國刑事訴訟法上之搜索所要保護之核心法益為何，並嘗試建構當偵查機關以非物理侵入之方式所取得之被告或犯罪嫌疑人之犯罪證據時是否構成搜索之判斷準則，並附帶論述偵查機關得否以附帶搜索之方式取得被拘提或逮捕被告、犯罪嫌疑人或執行羈押之人之行動電話內之數位證據等相關議題的看法，以供我國實務運作時之參考。

Firstly, Judicial-Yuan, Republic of China (Taiwan), interpretations Nos. 585, 603 and 631 held that although the right of privacy is not among those rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it should nonetheless be considered as an indispensable fundamental right and thus protected under Article 22 of the Constitution. In addition, the freedom of privacy of correspondence is one of concrete modes of right to privacy that the Constitution guarantees. (see Article 12 of the Constitution) The application of the Article 12 of the Constitution depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a “reasonable expectation of privacy” or “reasonable expectation of secret” that has been invaded by government action. (see Articles 3 of the Communication Protection and Monitoring Law) Secondly ,the search and seizure in criminal procedure governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements. In other words, communication monitoring essentially is one of concrete modes of search and seizure in criminal procedure, which are both protection the individual interest in privacy. Further, when the government gains evidence by physically intruding on constitutionally protected areas, constitutes a “search.” Conversely, when the government obtained evidence without physical intrusion that could also constitutes a “search.”? Moreover, with the development of technologies, the government’s method of criminal investigations are improvingly, which mignt gains evidence without physical intrusion frequently. And so , it is necessary to seek a new test to be added to, not substituted for “the common-law trespassory test” (“physical trespass doctrine”) in order to solve the problem. Furthermore, in recent years the cell phone becomes very popular ,which can stored large amounts of digital information about individual’s privacy. Due to a search of all data stored on a cell phone is materially indistinguishable from searches of physical items and that might be easily destructed by remote wiping or data encryption. Thus, whether the government could without a warrant, search digital information stored on the cell phones seized from the defendants as incident to the defendants’ arrests? And how to reasonableness the balancing of competing interests (on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests)? This article will reference of U.S. Supreme Court decision, Judicial-Yuan, Republic of China (Taiwan), iInterpretations and Judicial practice to examine and put forward personal point of views for the above issues. Looking forward this article could be helpful to our country’s criminal justice practice.