論刑事訴訟法中酒駕強制呼氣檢查規定之妥當性

我國刑法於1999年制定了第185條之3醉態駕駛罪，為了取證上的便利，更進一步在2003年制定了刑事訴訟法第205條之2身體檢查的法律規定。該規定並不符合前述刑事訴訟法的規定，且與公權力制約的上綱原則－比例原則亦有違背，而有予以禁止之必要。至於該條文在我國刑事訴訟法上應屬於證據取得層次的強制處分。最重要的是，此一規定違反刑事法上的重要原則―不自證己罪原則。由於本文採取不自證己罪原則射程兼及被告主動與被動行為的射程範圍，上述強制呼氣檢測的規定的確存有正當性的內在瑕疵。不過不論是要採取全面否定或是以選擇權的方式讓被告選擇，以稀釋不自證己罪原則違反的效應，都不是問題解決的最佳方法。基於合憲性解釋的使命，強制呼氣檢查的規範，應僅指前階段將氣測器置入被告口中的動作而已。至於被告要不要進一步呼氣全取決於其主觀決定，是否有接續呼吸動作，如此則可能避免存在與不自證己罪的扞格，至少因為強迫所產生的諸多問題可以降低許多。

關鍵字

醉態駕駛罪；強制呼氣檢查；不自證己罪；緘默權；緊急搜索

並列摘要

In light of the enactment of Article 185-3 drunk driving offense of Criminal Code of the Republic of China in 1999, Code of Criminal Procedure Article 205-2 was subsequently adopted in 2003 to further compliment the previous legislation in evidence procurement. However, the application of Article 205-2 is far from settled. In fact, it raise questions as to whether it runs afoul of the fundamental principles of criminal law and its constitutionality. First, drivers are often pulled over by the police and forced to submit to Breathalyzer tests even without signs of physical impairment. Such act of police power in no way complies with the foregoing Articles and nor does it show due regard for the principle of proportionality, which were set to protect the people from undue law enforcement. In addition, compulsory measures under Article 205-2 are stipulated in terms of procuring evidence, and are therefore not regulated by provisions concerning search and seizure. The most alarming of all is that Article 205-2 virtually violates the privilege against self-incrimination. This paper takes the view that both active and passive acts of a defendant are ensured by the privilege against self-incrimination. Under such presumption, Article 205-2, which warrants compulsory Breathalyzer tests, is therefore illegitimate. Nonetheless, neither to abolish this article nor to recognize the defendant's right to refuse the test is the possible solution to minimize the effect of its violation. The author suggests, to interpret Article 205-2 constitutionally, compulsory Breathalyzer test should be viewed in two parts. Firstly, forcing the placement of the Breathalyzer into the defendant's mouth is warranted. Secondly, the defendant has full discretion whether to exhale into the Breathalyzer and complete the test or not. In this regard, it would conform to the privilege of self-incrimination or at least lessen the problems arising from compulsory measures.