Only a year after a heated row over searches of media organizations and journalists' homes, prosecutors and investigators again incurred charges yesterday of infringing press freedom and violating fundamental rights.
Prosecutors and investigators yesterday searched the offices of the China Times Express (
The search was conducted in the wake of the paper's publication of a transcript of interviews, conducted by Taipei district prosecutors, of three key witnesses in the corruption scandal of National Security Bureau official Liu Kuan-chun (
On July 27 last year, Taipei district prosecutors had searched the offices of the China Times Express' parent company, the China Times Group, on suspicion that they had purchased confidential information from Lo Chih-hau (駱志豪), secretary to a former transportation minister.
The searches provoked strong criticism of law enforcement officials, who were seeking evidence to support allegations that Lo had leaked materials about aviation talks between Taiwan and other countries
Yesterday's actions renewed calls for a rethinking of the methods employed by law enforcement officials.
"This is more about violations of individual rights and due process of law than infringement of press freedom," said Lin Tzu-yi (林子儀), law professor at the National Taiwan University.
"Too many individual cases have exposed serious problems with the existing system, in which the prosecutors have far too much power," Lin said. "It's time for us to rethink whether the courts, a neutral party, should perhaps have the discretion to limit prosecutors' actions of search or seizure."
Nigel Lee (李念祖), a constitutional scholar and attorney, also holds that law enforcement officials must not have unfettered rights and argues that legal changes are needed to impose limits.
"This incident received so much attention because [it involved the press]. But this kind of thing occurs in real life every day in this country, when ordinary citizens' constitutional rights are violated by law enforcement officials," Lee said.
There are prosecutors who say that the press does not have any privilege to be free from search or seizure.
Such searches and seizures only occur in the course of investigating crime suspects and if the case is one which threatens national security.
Media organizations have the same standing in law as citizens.
The professors cited two US Supreme Court rulings related to press freedoms.
In Branzburg vs Hayes, reporter Paul Branzburg was subpoenaed by a grand jury but refused to disclose the identity of sources for a story about making illegal drugs. The court concluded that there was no "constitutional journalists' privilege" to prevent the disclosure of confidential sources and information in grand jury proceedings.
In another case, the US Supreme Court established in Zurcher vs. Standford Daily that neither the First Amendment -- which bars the US government from infringing upon freedom of expression -- nor the Fourth Amendment -- limiting the extent of search and seizure -- prohibited police from using a search warrant to obtain newspaper files for evidence of crimes committed by third persons.
Agreeing that journalists have no special privilege during criminal investigations, Lin and Lee noted that the issue is whether the cause of the search is justifiable.
RSS