警察裁量權之界限—以社會秩序維護法第85條為例

On the Limit of Police Discretion:the Case of Social Order Maintenance Act Article 85

伍徹輿(Che-Yu Wu)

指導教授 ： 林明鏘

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201601130

摘要

社會運動興起，318反服貿學運中許多參與的教授、學生、群眾在未有何強暴脅迫行為下被警察粗暴的對待，冠以妨害公務之名。實務上，警察在面對涉及妨害公務之行為，得就社會秩序維護法第85條與刑法第135條作構成要件之選擇、認定，兩者之界限劃分模糊不清，使警察得享有相當大之裁量空間。
我國有關行政裁量理論與實務之發展，深受德國行政法學關於不確定法律概念與行政裁量採「質的區別說」之影響，導致司法權面對行政裁量之合法性界限、行政裁量之法律控制問題時，往往因其屬判斷餘地抑或裁量餘地類型而予以分別割裂處理，實有重新思考之必要。我國警察身兼司法警察與行政警察兩種身分，警職法及各作用法中概括條款之授權，使得警察之職權與任務無所不包，擁有廣泛的裁量權，加上「時間」、「個案」等因素須賦予警察在個案中一定之裁量權，且警察裁量權具有強烈之個人化特性，裁量時容易被主觀價值所影響，故本文嘗試提出警察裁量權包括構成要件與法律效果的裁量，捨棄行政法通說將裁量限於法律效果之見解，認為司法應以動態的警察行政行為為標的作全面審查。
警察雖非最終之裁罰決定機關，但人民之身體、自由、權利往往早已被第一線的警察於執法過程中所侵害。尤其是社維法第85條和刑法妨害公務罪兩者有灰色地帶，造成警察選擇社維法或刑法有事實上之裁量權，在社維法第85條之案件，如丟鞋事件、人民反蒐證事件即為警察濫用社維法第85條之例，本文希冀於警察之行政行為在進入緩不濟急的司法審查前透過行政權訂定行政命令落實正當行政程序，貫徹行政程序法之規定，避免警察裁量時摻入過多主觀以妨害公務之名行迫害人民之實，以保障人民之權利，與憲法保障言論自由的基本權，並且進一步全面檢討現行社會秩序維護法。

關鍵字

行政裁量 ； 警察裁量權 ； 社會秩序維護法 ； 警察職權行使法 ； 言論自由 ； 妨害公務

並列摘要

Following by the social movement, professors and students who participated the 318 Anti- ECFA protests were treated under the police violence and accused of obstruction for official duties. However, police officer has quite a huge power to decide whether this behavior is an offense or not base on Social Order Maintenance Act Article 85 and Criminal Law Article 135 which means the descriptive boundary is unclear and give the police too much power.
The development of theory and practice of Administrative Discretion in Taiwan is deeply influenced by Administrative Law in Germany. The impact of “Theory of Qualitative Difference” leads to the problem of boundary of legality and law controlling when police take in charge of administrative discretion. Police officer in Taiwan has both identites of judicial and administrative officers therefore has rights from both sides. As a result, the discretion is mainly made from the personal judgements and highly influenced by the personal interest. This dissertation aims to reconstruct the idea of administrative discretion based on its components and effects to give it and reflexive overviews of this problem.
Even though the police officer is not the final court for the final judgement, the freedom of speech and human right easily offense by the police on the front line. The case of throwing shoes, anti-evidence collection is the example for the misuse power. This article aims to use the case to review the Social Order Maintainance Act, and claims for police should follow the proper administration procedure rather than only use the subjective judgment in order to protect the human rights.

並列關鍵字

administrative discretion ； police discretion ； Social Order Maintenance Act ； Offenses of Obstructing an Officer In Discharge of Duties ； Police Power Exercise Act ； freedom of speech

參考文獻

1.朱政坤（2011），《警察命令解散處分之研究》，國立臺灣大學法研所碩士論文。

27.許宗力（1990），〈行政命令授權明確性問題之研究〉，《台灣大學法學論叢》，第19卷第2期，頁51-90。

30.陳文貴（2007），〈從行政罰法看行政不法與刑事不法之交錯〉，《法令月刊》，58卷11期，頁36-51。

34.陳正根（2011），〈警察與秩序法上責任人與責任界限〉，《警察法學》，10期，頁91-151。

43.黃舒芃（2010），〈法律授權與法律拘束：Hans Kelsen的規範理論對德國行政法上「不確定法律概念」拘束功能的啟示〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，頁47-95。