Smartphone Search After a Flagrant Arrest
At 23:40, officers respond to an assault report at a bar. The victim has a bleeding lip. A (26) is found 200 meters away with blood on his sleeve and is arrested as a flagrant offender under Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act. At 23:55, officers seize A's smartphone from his pocket because it is 'evidence.' At 01:10 at the station, without a warrant, Detective C opens the phone using A's fingerprint, reads KakaoTalk messages, and finds a message saying 'I hit him once, but he started it.' C also finds a photo of the victim taken before the assault. A's lawyer moves to exclude the messages and photo. The arrest was lawful, and A was informed of his rights. No exigency existed after 01:10; A refused consent.
1. Separate the legality of (a) seizing the phone from A's pocket at the scene and (b) opening and reading its contents at the station.
Read the worked answer
Separate the physical phone from its contents. The seizure of a phone from A's pocket at the scene can be lawful if officers had probable cause that it was connected to the assault and the seizure fell within the permissible scope of the arrest scene. The phone is tangible evidence. Opening it and reading KakaoTalk, however, is a search of private electronic information protected by Article 17 of the Constitution. Korean practice treats the contents of a seized phone as requiring a warrant; the arrest alone does not authorize a general search of the phone. The 01:10 search was two hours after arrest, at the station, with no exigency and after A refused consent. Using A's fingerprint to unlock the phone while he was in custody adds a coercion problem. Therefore (a) is likely lawful if documented, but (b) is likely unlawful.
2. Would the exclusion rule under Article 308-2 exclude the messages and photo, and what exceptions might the court consider?
Read the worked answer
Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act excludes evidence obtained in violation of law or due process. The messages and photo are fruits of the illegal opening, so they are likely inadmissible against A. The court will ask whether the violation was substantial and whether an exception applies. There was no urgency after 01:10; a warrant could have been obtained. Independent-source and inevitable-discovery arguments are weak because the police did not already have the contents. Consent was refused. The forced fingerprint unlock compounds the violation. The photo might still be proved through the victim or the store CCTV if independently obtained, but not through this search. The practical result is exclusion, and the case should be built on the victim's statement, medical evidence, and scene CCTV.
3. Draft the lawful steps C should have taken from 23:55 to obtain the phone contents.
Read the worked answer
At 23:55, seize the phone, photograph it, record the time, location, and the person who had possession, and place it in an evidence bag. Do not power it on or connect it to a network. At the station, keep it in the evidence locker and apply for a warrant under the Criminal Procedure Act. The warrant request should specify the offense, the phone, the accounts, the date range, and the categories of data sought. If a warrant is issued, make a forensic image, hash it, and search only the authorized scope. If A refuses to unlock the phone, do not force his finger; seek technical extraction under the warrant or ask the court for an order. Document every step. If an emergency truly exists-remote wiping or destruction-record the facts and seek post hoc approval as required. The key is that the physical seizure and the content search are separate legal acts.