透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.236.171.68
  • 學位論文

從CCTV在犯罪偵防之運用論其在刑事訴訟上之法律爭論

Discussing the Legal Issues in the Criminal Procedure Law Regarding the Usages of CCTV in Criminal Investigation

指導教授 : 廖正豪
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


往昔,監視器多運用於軍事、工業、醫療、銀行、下水道維修、交通路況監視及教育訓練等用途。近年來逐漸被治安機關運用於犯罪偵查上,我國運用監視器於犯罪偵查的步調晚於英國、美國等歐美國家,相鄰我國較近的日本,運用監視器打擊犯罪之發軔亦早於我國,因而,前各國相關實證資料及文獻可供我國參考,其運用監視器於危害防止或犯行追緝的利弊與總總現象,亦值得我國引以為反思。 而由於監視錄影器「全視」、「全錄」的功能,對於普遍民眾的基本權(尤其是人民的「資訊自決權」、「資訊隱私權」以及「行為自由」等)遭受一定程度的限制與剝奪。而在監視器已經是一個現代社會普遍既存的機器與技術情況下,其有許多不同的使用方式,關鍵在於社會如何運用它;如何善用其正面功效並防堵負面效應的滋生,便須依靠完善立法規範。在「法治國原則」之檢驗下,監視器利用的法規範必須慎重考量,以期兼顧目的、要件與程序,並注意基本人權與公益維護間之平衡。 警察職權行使法為立法院三讀通過之法律,其中第十條授權警察運用監視器來達成其任務,就此已足堪作為警察架設監視器行為之明文依據。惟由於該法的規範密度稍嫌不足,職權行使法第十條之授權僅限於警察架設監視器之行為,尚不包括村(里)長、私人基於家主權(Hausrecht)之維護而裝設監視器之行為,恐有掛一漏萬之虞。由於監視影像資訊所涉及者皆為「個人資料」,因此,必要時必須回歸電腦處理個人資料保護法之相關規定,甚且,應以電腦處理個人資料保護法作為監視影像系統攝取個人資訊之總則性規範,如此,對於「個人資訊保護網絡」方屬周全。 再者,近年來實務運作上相當依賴監視錄影設備所帶來的證據效果,甚而將之作為論罪科刑之主要依據。惟該影像資訊在刑事訴訟上之證據評價與定位?能否通過相關證據法則的檢驗?又其在審判程序中調查證據階段應踐行如何之調查證據程序?在「關聯性法則」、「證據禁止/排除法則」以及「傳聞法則」等證據法則之檢驗之下,該「監視影像證據」必須具備「重要性」、「必要性」與「可能性」,其取得過程必須合法妥當,以及「監視影像證據」是否為「傳聞證據」而有「傳聞法則」之適用,均有討論之必要而為本文關注之焦點。

並列摘要


In the past, CCTV(closed-circuit television system ) applied to military, industry, medical treatment, banking, sewers fixing, traffic controlling, and educational training . In recent years, CCTV applied to criminal investigation progressively. the usages of CCTV in criminal investigation by Specific state agencies was a bit later comparing to Britain`s and American`s. Even Being a neighbouring country to us, Japan, it’s specific state agencies used CCTV against crimes earlier than us. Those practicing data and discussing of the academic circle involved in CCTV in these countries might be suitable reference for the executive authorities to make better understanding about the benefits and flaws of using CCTV. Due to the “all-seeing, all-recording” trait of CCTV, the usage of CCTV has restricted and deprived the people’s basic rights (especially to information autonomy, information privacy and freedom to act ). Being spreading and commonly existing methods, the usages of CCTV are of multiple purposes. The vital issue is always how to use CCTV. As such, we must fall back on adequate, sound and appropriate legislation and regulations to harness the advantages of CCTV while minimizing the negative downsides. These regulations must stand up to the standards of the “Rule of the Law” principle and require deliberate consideration regardless of the purpose, conditions and procedures to maintain the balance between basic human rights and interests of the pubic. Presently, The Police Authority Performing Act, having been passed through by the legislature, Article 10 of the Police Authority Performing Act is the legislative basis for polices to set up CCTV. However, it still has room for improvement with regards to the fineness of coverage. Since Article 10 of the Police Authority Performing Act is only the legislative basis for polices’ usages, it cannot be the same basis for civilians’ usages. And, all data captured by video surveillance systems can be categorized as “personal information”, the need to refer to the Computer Processed Data Protection Act may arise occasionally. In fact, it could be feasible to adopt the Computer Processed Data Protection Act to serve as the general principles that govern the regulation on the capturing of personal information by video surveillance systems to fortify the network of protection for personal data/information. Furthermore, the law enforcement personnel respectably rely on the data captured by CCTV. The data even may serve as concrete evidence in determining the offences committed by a perpetrator. How do we classify those data into specific categories of evidence in the criminal litigation procedures? How do we examine those data to make sure it can stand up to the tests of various criminal principles? And what methods should we use to practice the investigation of evidence? In order to be used as legitimate evidence, the data must stand up to the tests of various criminal principles such as the principles of relevance, exclusionary rule, hearsay rule and so forth. In other words, a piece of surveillance video evidence and the issue on fact must encompass “significance”, “necessity” and “possibility”. In addition, the process involved in the acquisition of surveillance video evidence must also be entirely legal and appropriate. On the other hand, the practice of adopting the hearsay rule to determine if a given surveillance video evidence should be recognized as an evidence of hearsay still requires further investigation. These issues should be properly dealt with and make the focuses of this thesis themselves.

參考文獻


45.湯德宗,行政程序法論,元照出版公司,2003年10月。
47.蔡茂寅,行政程序法實用,學林文化事業有限公司,2001年第二版。
發展,檢警專案小組召開319專案說明會,宣布瀕臨破案」。
版公司,2001年。
44.許春金,人本犯罪學,三民書局,2006年。

延伸閱讀