摘要
我國刑訴法規定，偵查官員得為執行拘提之目的而無令狀地進入到私人處所中。然而，無論進入私人住居所的目的為何，一旦警察官員進入其中，就已經構成搜索。拘提影響的是人民的人身自由，搜索涉及的是相對人的隱私權益。何以為了拘提特定人就可以進入到私人處所，便為值得深入探究的議題。在分析討論美國聯邦最高法院的Steagald案及Payton案後，本文認為Payton案無論是在隱私保障或有效訴追犯罪上，可能都有其瑕疵，並不可採。為了有效保護被拘提人及第三人的隱私權益，以及提供檢警機關較為明確的執法準則，應認為，只要是進入到私人住所中，無論其係被拘提人或第三人所有，除非有緊急情狀或獲得有效同意，否則，都應該要取得法官所核發的搜索票，方得為之。也因此，我國刑事訴訟法第131條第1項第1款中的拘提，應係指第88條之1的緊急搜索，而不包括依拘票所進行的拘提。
並列摘要
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in order to arrest a suspect the law enforcement may warrantlessly enter a private house. However, entry of a person's house constitutes a search no matter what purpose the police work for. Arrest invades people's personal freedom while searches intrude their privacy rights. Why may the police search a person's house in order to conduct an arrest? That is a material question which should be worked on. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the law enforcement may enter a private house without a warrant in order to conduct an arrest. However, entry of a private house constitutes a personal freedom while a search concerns privacy rights. Why is it permissible for the police to search a person's house in order to conduct an arrest? After analyzing the Payton and Steagald cases, this article argues that Payton ignored both the importance of privacy protection and the efficiency of criminal investigation. In order to properly protect people's privacy rights and provide the law enforcement with a bright line, this article argues that the police should obtain a search warrant before entering a private house no mater who that house belongs to unless exigent circumstances exists or valid consents are given. Therefore, item 1 of section 1 of article 131 should only apply to the arrest which is conducted according to article 88-1.