"Timing and efficiency are crucial in fighting crime. An urgent search may be delayed if a court's approval is required," he said.
He acknowledged that, on the other hand, further scrutiny by the court may further ensure the validity of a search, but he said that the search of the China Times Express was, in his view, "legal and it is not a question of who issued the warrant."
He said that if prosecutors lose the power of search and seizure it would be disadvantageous to public safety and security in the long run.
Chen Tze-lung (陳志龍), a law professor at National Taiwan University, said that if the change were to be made, extraordinary measures for emergency cases would have to be taken into account.
He said, for example that in certain circumstances in the US, an application for a warrant can be made by telephone and the requisite application documents submitted after an urgent search.
He said, however, that transferring the power to grant a search warrant to the court was not absolutely necessary. "The primary point is that there should be a written document authorizing a search. Then somebody can be held accountable."
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor or judge may personally conduct a search without a warrant by instead showing his or her identification card.
Some advocates of the power transfer, like the China Times group, call it "a return of powers of search and seizure to the court." But Su Yeong-chin (蘇永欽), law professor and constitutional expert at National Chengchi University disagreed. He said that those who referred to a "return" of the powers to the courts were judging the issue according to the concepts of the US legal system. Taiwan's legal system is of the Continental type.
He said that in theory, powers of search and seizure do not inherently belong to the court.
The China Times Express, in its appeal against the search, argued that the clauses in the Code of Criminal Procedure, on which the current practice is based, violate the Constitution, and asked the court to petition for a Council of Grand Justices interpretation of the Constitution.
Su does not think an interpretation of the Constitution would be a good answer but says that if a transfer of the search and seizure powers earned the judicial system more trust, it may be desirable to amend the law.
RSS