私人不法取證之證據使用禁止

Exclusion of Evidence Unlawfully Obtained by Private Parties

於盼盼(Pan-Pan Yu)

指導教授 ： 林鈺雄

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.02043

摘要

刑事案件主要係由追訴機關負責從事證據蒐集，但有時基於案件特性或利害關係考量，私人也常有自發性的蒐證行為。既然私人在現實生活中會自行蒐證，那麼對衍生自私人取證的問題也就無法視而不見。私人取證若構成刑事不法行為，因此所得之證據得否使用？其兩難之處在於，此時乃是私人以違反實體法之方式取證，而非刑事追訴機關違反程序法。對此，我國立法保持沉默，實務也連帶地舉棋不定。

職此，本文以最高法院的一系列判決為例證，彰顯可能左右私人不法取證之證據能力的因素。其次，就理論面而言，隨時間演進，各家學說早已是枝繁葉茂，其取徑可大別為二：第一種看法直接以證據係源自於私人違法的取證行為而禁止使用該證據；第二種論點則認為私人違法取證本身並不直接導致排除證據能力，評價焦點應轉移到私人不法之外的其他面向。本文分析並檢討學界曾提出的論點，主張以「國家違法取證假設說」決定私人違法取證之證據能力，為維護立法者透過取證規範所做的資訊分配，私人不法取得之證據是否具有證據能力，應以國家在抽象的法律情勢中能否合法取得該證據為斷。

另外，本文探討的範疇係純粹的私人取證，其與私人參與國家偵查的區別何在？尤其是應如何評價國家收購私人違法取得之證據？源於【列支敦斯豋案】的新興的合作模式為近年熱門議題，為對其提供較全面的觀照，多階段取證模式所引發的實體法、程序法乃至於證據法爭議，均在本文討論範圍內。

關鍵字

私人不法取證 ； 證據使用禁止 ； 嚇阻違法 ； 資訊分配 ； 國家合法取證假設説列支敦斯登案

並列摘要

Generally speaking, the government plays the main role of criminal investigation and the gathering of evidence. Nevertheless, depends on case characters or other considerations, it is quite normal that private parties gather evidences spontaneously. Subsequently, problems generated from it can no longer be neglected.

It often occurs that private parties acted illegally when gathering evidence. It would be difficult dealing with the admissibility of such evidence. The reasons lie in double sides, on the one hand, private parties conducted against criminal laws, rather than criminal procedure laws; on the other hand, the government itself did not violate procedure regulations in the process of gaining evidence.

Acknowledges with above situations, the thesis introduces various kinds of theories with respect to the admissibility of evidence illegally obtained by private parties. The approach of theories can be generally subdivided into two categories: First, some literatures do not think that illegally gathering of evidence obtained by private parties directly causes its exclusion; the focus should be relatively put on the conduct of public authority, namely, the use of evidence. In comparison with it, other studies regard private-parties wrongful act as the essential reason why evidences drawn from it should be excluded. Based on the analysis, the thesis proposes a workable criterion, that is, evidence generated from private illegal conducts should be excluded as long as investigation authorities itself are unable to acquire it lawfully.

The thesis focuses on the admissibility of evidence illegally obtained from private parties; however, how to handle evidences that gathered under the cooperation of governments and private parties? On 2006, the so-called”Liechtenstein-Affair” aroused general debates which worth a thorough study. Therefore, the thesis makes extensive discussions on the issues derivate from the case.

並列關鍵字

Evidence illegally obtained by private parties ； Evidence exclusionary rule ； Discipline of law enforcement officers ； Distribution of information ； Presumption of evidence lawfully obtained by investigation authority ； Liechtenstein Affair

參考文獻

王兆鵬，《刑事訴訟講義》，2版，2006年。

林鈺雄，《刑事訴訟法》，上冊，6版，2010年。

連孟琦，《論監聽之證據使用禁止》，臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文，2005年。

黃吉祥，《論假設偵查流程理論》，臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文，2004年。

蘇慶良，《私人取得之證據在刑事審判上之效力－以證據排除法則為中心》，臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文，2004年。