| 摘要: | 2017年11月30日最高法院106年度台上字第3788號「GPS判決」，宣告使用GPS追蹤器欠缺法律授權基礎，並據此判處海巡人員妨害秘密罪刑；判決最後呼籲立法者應儘速研議制定符合正當法律程序及實體真實發現之法律，意外啟動後續科技偵查法制化工程。無獨有偶，2022年11月17日最高法院110年度台上字第4549號「M化車判決」，亦宣告使用M化車之秘密性科技偵查行為，涉及犯罪偵查效率與人民基本權保護等重要價值之衝突與抉擇，而科技偵查之種類、適用之犯罪類型與監督程序，及其使用方式、期間、蒐集資訊之保存暨使用、事後救濟與通知義務等事項之決定，宜由國會儘速以法律或法律授權就偵查機關所應遵循之程序及實質要件，予以明確規定而妥適立法。
2020年9月8日，法務部公告《科技偵查法》草案，一時輿論譁然，引發學者、實務界抨擊，可謂百家爭鳴，有認為科技偵查之規定應放在刑事訴訟法；有認為宜規定在通訊保障及監察法；也有認為以另立新法為佳。本文贊同最後者，內容首先介紹法治國原則與正當法律程序及目前科技偵查之理論與實務，並以查緝毒品走私為例，說明偵查此類案件遭遇之困境，而檢警合法使用的偵查技術非常有限，在行動通信網路電話越來越普及後，傳統電話掛線監聽
已幾乎毫無用武之地，亟需法律授權使用科技偵查設備，以設備端通訊監察、GPS、M化車、空拍機、熱顯像儀等來提高查緝毒品走私之成效。再來說明並比較我國科技偵查法草案與德國刑事訴訟法科技偵查規定之差異，最後則提出我國科技偵查法草案之立法建議。
According to the rule number 106-3788 of the supreme court in November 2017, which is also known as “GPS judgment”, it declares that using GPS tracking equipment is in absence of the base of legal authorization. The result of judgement suggests that law makers should enact the law in correspondent to the due process of law and laws that could find out the real truth, which accidentally kick off the legalization of technology crime investigation. Coincidentally,according to the judgment No.110-4549 made by the supreme court on 17,November,2022,which is also known as 〝M-car judgment 〞,it declares that the use of M-car as secretly technological investigation involves in the conflicts and choices between criminal investigation effectiveness,protection of basic human right and some other important values.
As for the types of technological criminal investigation,the corresponding types of crime,its auditorial procedure,and its way and period of use,the preservation and use of information collected, the administrative remedy,the obligation of noticing and so on,it is recommended for the legislature to enact a law appropriately which clearly regulates investigative unit as to which procedure and substantial requirement it should abide by as soon as possible.
On 8,September,2020 Ｍinistry of Justice announced the draft of “Technology Investigation Law”, which stirred a chaos among the public. In the field of academy and practice, they both denied the draft. For instance, some argue the regulation should be incorporated to the Code of Criminal Procedure or Communication Security and Surveillance Act, while some argue that it would be better to enact a new law. In my viewpoint, I prefer the last one. It begins with the introduction of the rule of law and both of the theory and practice of technology investigation as well. Besides, I take the example of the dilemma we encountered while cracking down on the crime of drug smuggling. The investigation technology which the prosecutors and the police could utilize is quite limited, especially when the mobile communication and internet telephone become more and more popular that traditional surveillance on telephone is barely effective. Therefore, we are in an urgent need of legal authorization to utilize technology equipment such as GPS,M-Car, aerial camera, thermal imager or any other equipment to conduct communication surveillance so that it could enhance the effectiveness of drug crime countering. Following that I compare and illustrate the differences between the draft of “Technology Investigation Law”and technology investigation regulation among the Code of Criminal Procedure in Germany. Lastly I provide my suggestion on the draft of “Technology Investigation Law”. |
