論進入場所行政檢查之正當法律程序—以法官保留為中心—

Abstract

過去就「法官保留」之相關議題，多集中於憲法第8條人身自由之討論。究其原因，應係此一程序保障乃我國憲法唯一明文之法官保留。而於法律層面，以刑事訴訟法為例，多以強制處分干預基本權利強烈為由，透過立法形成法官保留之制度。其中，刑事搜索係因嚴重侵害人民於物理空間內，所享有之隱私權、居住自由等權利，故立法設有法官事先介入審查之機制。而，進入場所行政檢查，乃國家進入私人住所或商業處所蒐集資訊不可或缺的方式，發動此一伴隨搜索外觀與功能之行政行為，是否亦有採取法官保留之空間，且此一程序保障，係立法者之形成自由，抑或是憲法上之誡命。就此，借鏡美國、日本之進入場所檢查法制，一方面確立法官保留為正當法律程序一環之重要性；另一方面，亦得以司法實務，肯認進入場所檢查適用法官保留之判斷標準，作為建構我國進入場所檢查法制之參考。藉由比較法制的觀察，以及我國法官保留之發展，本文認為，從隱私權保障角度觀察，進入場所檢查自有適用法官保留之空間，並透過人民合理期待的隱私，以及國家實施檢查的強制程度等方面，綜合判斷如何適用法官保留，甚者，提出不適用法官保留之例外情形。準此，本文期能以憲法上正當法律程序與人民基本權利保障的觀點分析，深化進入場所檢查與法官保留議題之討論。

In the past, topics related to “prior judicial review” are concentrated on the discussion of the right of personal freedom constituted by Article 8 of the Constitution of Taiwan. Tracing back the reason, the right of personal freedom is the only fundamental right with the procedural protection in the Constitution. From the perspective of the Law, the Code of Criminal Procedure’s prior judicial review is formed due to the reason that compulsory measures oftentimes intervene human rights intensely. Among the compulsory measures, the criminal search infringes upon the privacy, freedom of residence and other fundamental rights in personal space severely. Therefore Congress has enacted the procedural protection of the prior judicial review for criminal search. Nonetheless, it is an indispensable method for the Government to invade personal place for administrative inspection in order to collect information. It is evident that the procedure for criminal search and administrative inspection are similar in nature. The main argument of this thesis is to evaluate the precondition of court warrant for administrative inspection, and to recognize whether this procedural protection requirement is formed on the Constitution or the nation law.To further this study, by reviewing the comparative practices of the United States and Japan as reference (for Taiwan’s administrative inspection law), enhances the importance of prior judicial review as part of the due process, furthermore, judicial practices enacts the legitimacy of court warrant for administrative inspections. Therefore, based on the observation of comparative foreign practices and the development of Taiwan’s prior judicial process, a perspective is formed, that from the viewpoint of privacy justice, as it should be that court warrant is essential for Site Inspection. Nevertheless, taking account of the general public’s expectation of privacy and the government’s enforcement on inspection, it is important to form a comprehensive judgement of adopting prior judicial review for administrative inspections, and exceptions in certain cases. To conclude, this research is to clarify the relation between Site Inspection and Prior Judicial Review.