刑事干預處分同意之研究－以我國現有處分類型之合法性控制為中心

Abstract

我國刑事訴訟法上有同意搜索及同意扣押之明文，而同意採尿及任意同行則為多數實務所承認之調查方式，得受處分人同意之處分得以免除須經法官或檢察官事前核發令狀方得實施之限制。學說、實務上多以憲法上基本權之捨棄作為此種同意之理論基礎，本文認為於積極面向上，當事人之同意同時作為系爭處分所涉及之基本權之行使，以具有自願性及對拒絕同意權利之知悉為要件，其法律效果為排除國家行為之干預性質。 強制處分同意之自願性容易因受處分人及國家機關間之權力落差而受到影響， 德國聯邦個人資料保護法近年來關於在刑事訴訟上取得個人資料之同意的程序規 範之修法，即為德國立法者意識到此一問題而提升規範密度之結果。關於文獻上提出執行機關應告知得以拒絕同意以確保同意自願性之主張，或許得以克服國家與人民間存在資訊落差之問題，然而執行人員重複說服以及權力落差對於同意自願性造成的問題，無法僅依賴關於拒絕權利之告知便得以改善。 得同意之處分因不構成對受處分人基本權之干預，無待法律規定即可為之， 但為有效保障受處分人之基本權，較為妥適的作法應該是由立法者加以明訂得以確保基本權捨棄之知情及自願性要件的處分實施程序，包括執行機關應對受處分人踐行完整之權利及資訊告知，此一權利及資訊告知應由執行人員同時以口頭及書面方式為之，而受處分人同意之意思應於載明告知內容之書面上表示。至少於住宅或電磁紀錄之同意搜索上，應踐行全程錄影之程序以利於個案中法院對於有無踐行告知義務及影響同意自願性之因素的判斷。

Consent search and consent seizure have been codified in Taiwan’s Code of Criminal Procedure, and the consent of gathering urine samples and the voluntary following for interrogation are considered to be legal investigation measures by courts in Taiwan. All these measures can be legally enforced without warrant or permission issued by judge or prosecutor. The consent in these measures is taken as a waiver of fundamental rights in academics and practices. This Article argues that the consent should also be read as an exercise of the fundamental right which is related to the measures, and the voluntariness and knowledge of the right to withhold consent is essential requirement. The legal effect of consent is to eliminate the interference with fundamental rights of these investigation measures. The voluntariness of consent is easily affected by the power gap between people and police. It is proposed in the literature that the police should inform that people have their right to withhold consent, which might be able to overcome the information gaps between police and people. However, the impact of continued persuasion for consent by police and power gaps on the voluntariness of consent cannot be improved by relying solely on the warnings of the right to withhold consent. Because the consent-based measures are not interference with the constitutional rights of the people concerned, it can be enforced without legal provisions. However, in order to effectively protect the constitutional rights of the people concerned, it is more appropriate for the legislator to codify the procedures to ensure the knowing and voluntary requirements of waiver of constitutional rights, including that police should inform citizen of the complete rights and information. These rights and information notification should be provided by the police both orally and in writing, and the consent of the person shall be expressed in a written statement that clearly states the content of the notification. In addition, at least in the consent search of dwelling and electronic record, the whole proceeding shall be record without interruption in video to facilitate the judgment of the court in each case on whether the obligation of notification has been fulfilled and the factors affecting the voluntariness of consent.