論私人不法取證之證據能力—以證據排除法則為中心

Abstract

證據是認定事實之基礎，也是刑事訴訟之核心。刑事訴訟法主要係以國家為規範對象，因此對於私人不法取得證據之是否應容許，以及因此取得證據之證據能力標準究竟為何，皆尚未有定見。 首先，本文以歐洲人權法院之一則判決為開場白，說明私人不法取證之證據能力判斷所面臨之困境。其次，本文將介紹英美法之證據排除法則與德國法之證據禁止理論，以作為私人不法取證問題討論之基礎。之後，本文將探討私人不法取證之容許性問題，提出學說上認為私人不法取證應完全排除之若干理由，並同時說明這些理由不可採之原因。 在確認私人不法取得之證據並非全面排除後，本文將引用一系列之美國法院判決，闡述私人不法取證標準建立之必要性。私人不法取證之證據能力判斷標準眾說紛紜，依照討論層次之不同，可分為二大脈絡：「刑事訴訟法說」與「憲法說」。「刑事訴訟法說」主張依現有之刑事訴訟法規範與相關理論中尋找可適用之標準，可細分為四個理論：類推適用刑事訴訟法說、權衡理論、假設偵查流程理論、公共功能說。此四個理論共通特徵為無視私人不法取證固有之特性，而認為此問題為國家取證之一種。 本文研究結論為，由於私人不法取證在很多方面和國家取證有所不同，因此證據能力判斷問題應回歸憲法，依照憲法之保護義務，作為私人不法取證判斷之理論基礎。而國家何時應啟動保護義務排除該證據，本文基於實體及程序之理由採取「人性尊嚴說」，並提出「三階審查說」作為私人不法取證之證據能力判斷標準。另外，人性尊嚴侵害之判斷會因涉及基本權之不同而異，此部分則須依個案判斷。

Evidence is the basis of determining the fact, and the core of the criminal procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure mainly regulates the state action, so the issue of whether or not the evidence obtained illegally by private individuals should be admissible and when the said evidence should be excluded are still disputed. To demonstrate the drawback of judging the admissibility of the said evidence, the study initially refers to a decision made by the European Court of Human Rights. Next, the study introduces the Exclusionary Rule of Evidence and the Principle of Prohibition of Evidence, which is the basis for clarifying the question of judging the admissibility of the said evidence. Then, the thesis refers to some theories adopted by other studies concerning the complete forbiddance of using the said evidence and simultaneously elucidates the shortcoming of those theories. After assuring that the said evidence is not prohibited under all circumstances, the thesis refers to a succession of court decisions in the U.S., displaying the necessity of the establishment of the standard of evaluating the admissibility of the said evidence. The standard of evaluating the admissibility of said evidence is divergent throughout law practice and theory. According to the range of the law discussed, the approach of the theories could be separated into two major categories: “theory concerning The Code of Criminal Procedure” and “theory concerning Constitution.” Theory concerning The Code of Criminal Procedure holds that obtainment of the evidence by private persons should be classified as part of the state action and obeys the law regulating the state, and the Theory contains four subordinate theories: “Theory of Analogizing The Code of Criminal Procedure”, “Measurement Theory”, “The Inevitable Discovery Exception”, and “Public Function Doctrine”. Each of the four subordinate theory ignores the private factor existing in the process of obtaining evidence by private persons. The study concludes that the standard of judging the admissibility of the said evidence should be modified in accordance with the regulation or the theory of the Constitution since the process of obtaining evidence by private persons and that by state differs in many respects. Protective obligation of the state of fundamental rights should be introduced when judging the admissibility of the said evidence. The state should fulfill the protective obligation by excluding the said evidence when the private person infringes others’ “human dignity” while obtaining the evidence. The study also proposes 'Three Step Doctrine' to judge whether the human dignity is infringed. In addition, the decision concerning the infringement of human dignity might differ in accordance with the fundamental rights involved, and this section shall be judged case by case.