This study examines the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the principles of "specific identification of objects" and the expansion of participation rights for the person whose digital information is seized, as well as their legal counsel, durin...
This study examines the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the principles of "specific identification of objects" and the expansion of participation rights for the person whose digital information is seized, as well as their legal counsel, during digital search and seizure procedures. Focusing on the boundaries set by criminal procedure law, the unique characteristics of digital evidence, and the expanded concept of eligible participants, this paper provides an in-depth analysis of procedural legitimacy. While recent judicial interpretations that grant participation rights to both the actual holder and their attorney represent significant progress in protecting defense rights and fundamental freedoms, this article also highlights the limitations of expanding procedural rights solely through case law without explicit legislative support. Moreover, it argues that merely broadening participation rights is insufficient to prevent abuse of digital searches, underscoring the need for institutional safeguards such as special enforcement officers and Furnishing a list of seized items. This research seeks to strike a balance between legislative improvement and the expansion of procedural guarantees, contributing to the development of lawful procedures and protection of fundamental rights in the era of digital criminal justice.