法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 禁止國家使用私人違法取得證據之理論基礎-兼評最高法院九十七年度臺上字第七三四號判決(The Rationale of the Inadmissibility of Evidence Unlawfully Obtained by a Private Person: A Case Study on Supreme Court Judgment No. 97-Tai-Shang-734)
編著譯者: 薛智仁
出版日期: 2011.06
刊登出處: 台灣/政大法學評論第 121 期 /53-105 頁
頁  數: 32 點閱次數: 1731
下載點數: 128 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 薛智仁
關 鍵 詞: 嚇阻警察違法偵查私人違法取證自主性證據使用禁止禁止國家收贓
中文摘要: 最高法院近來在許多判決裡,將嚇阻警察違法偵查視為證據使用禁止的基礎理論,並由此推論出,除了強暴、脅迫所取得之供述以外,原則上容許使用私人違法取得之證據。然而,嚇阻違法偵查觀點係奠基於當事人進行主義之上,不適用於我國仍受職權調查原則支配的刑事程序,也不符現行法的法定證據使用禁止規定,故無助於釐清私人違法取證之證據使用禁止難題。本文認為,迄今並無任何觀點能夠有效地將證據使用禁止效果連結到私人取證的違法性,國家能否使用私人違法取得之證據,應依法院調查證據對於被告基本權之干預是否具有合憲性事由而定,私人取證的違法性對此合憲性判斷並無特殊意義。
英文關鍵詞: Deterring Future Police Illegal ConductEvidence Unlawfully Obtained by a Private PersonEvidence Suppressed by the Court’s Initiative for Violating the Fundamental Rights in the ConstitutionGovernment Shall not Take from a Thief
英文摘要: Recently, many Supreme Court cases have been of the opinion that the ratio legis behind the exclusionary rule of evidence is to deter future illegal conduct on the part of the police. It follows that evidence illegally obtained by a private person is admissible in principle with the exception of verbal statements collected by means of coercion or intimidation. However, the deterrence rationale derived from the adversarial system is neither applicable to our criminal procedures where the court examines the evidence ex officio nor in conformity with our current statutory exclusionary rules. Therefore, such a rationale is not able to clarify the dilemma on whether evidence obtained illegally by a private person could be admissible in court. This paper argues that since there is no basis for applying an exclusionary rule of evidence to evidence obtained illegally by a private person, whether such evidence should be suppressed in court depends on the courts evaluation on whether the violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights can be justified.
目  次: 壹、最高法院判決之新發展
貳、「嚇阻警察違法取證」作為證據使用禁止之基礎?
一、理論背景
二、理論繼受的可行性檢討
(一)嚇阻警察違法取證的需求
(二)證據使用禁止的嚇阻效力
(三)證據使用禁止的嚇阻正當性
三、於私人違法取證難題之運用極限
四、中間結論
參、禁止國家使用私人違法取得證據之可能依據
一、理論概述及其問題
二、取徑一:可歸責或類似國家之違法取證
(一)私人違法取證可歸責於國家?
(二)刑事訴訟之取證規定對私人有拘束力?
三、取徑二:禁止國家收贓
(一)延續或加深干預個人權利?
(二)鼓勵私人違法取證?
(三)違反法秩序一體性或阻礙刑法秩序的實現?
四、取徑三:履行國家保護基本權的義務
五、取徑四:國家無法合法取得該證據之假設
六、中間結論
肆、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列