我國刑事訴訟法上不法取證證據排除法則法制之實然與應然—比較法之觀點

The Ideal and Reality of Exclusionary Rule in Our Criminal Procedure—In the Perspective of Comparative Law

廖凱民(Kai-Min Liao)

指導教授 ： 林輝煌 博士

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2011年)

摘要

刑事訴訟法乃是憲法的測震儀，其目的在於發現真實與保障人權。惟在發現真實與保障人權的目的下，很多時候兩者乃是互相衝突的。美國學者Packer曾提出兩種不同的模式，幫助學習刑事訴訟法者瞭解刑事程序，其一乃是正當程序模式（The Due Process Model）其二乃是犯罪控制模式（The Crime Control Model）。兩種模式反映出在刑事訴訟程序中兩種競合的法益之緊張關係，亦即刑事訴訟在追求法治與保障人民自由間的相互衝突，而證據排除法則乃是這樣衝突關係下最受爭議的產物，證據排除法則乃是處理國家機關違法取證時，應否將證據排除適用的法則，一直以來正反論爭不斷，本文企圖透過美國證據排除法則的研究，利用比較法之觀點，臧匹我國制度的優劣，以為未來修法之章本。
本文共可分為五個章節架構敘述如次：
第一章屬於序論，提出本文之研究動動機以及研究方法，其中比較法乃是本文所使用的主要方法，針對美國法上之證據排除法則書籍、期刊、法典相關資料蒐集彙整，用作主要研究對象。
第二章屬於美國證據排除法則發展的歷史介紹，一項法律制度絕非橫空出世忽然產生，美國證據排除法則有其發展之歷史進程以及時代背景，依序介紹證據排除法則之Common Law背景、發展期、刑事訴訟法憲法化潮流、法則限縮時期以及對於證據排除法則之相關理論。
第三章屬於證據排除法則之範圍介紹，根據美國憲法依序介紹第四增修條款之證據排除法則—違法搜索扣押之證據排除、第五增修條款之證據排除—違反不自證己罪之證據排除、第六增修條款之證據排除—違反律師辯護權之證據排除、第十四增修條款之證據排除—違反正當法律程序之證據排除、不正訊問之證據排除、違反通訊監察之證據排除、遲延移送法則、米蘭達法則、毒樹果實理論。
第四章為我國證據排除法則之相關規定，以及法制相關問題的研析探討。針對過去大法官會議所為解釋、最高法院相關判決、條文現行規定和美國法之相關作法異同加以比較，提出其中不適切之處以及如何改正的立法建議。並試圖為證據排除法則在憲法上找到定位。
第五章為結論與建議，由上述所發現的問題以及解決方式提出本文見解，希望未來作為修法的藍本，使我國證據排除法制更加完善。

關鍵字

證據排除 ； 搜索扣押 ； 毒樹果實 ； 米蘭達 ； 通訊監察

並列摘要

Criminal procedure is the branch of constitutional law concerned with the power to maintain an orderly society and the right of citizens and residents to live in freedom from undue government interference with their liberty. Criminal procedure is vitally important in the criminal justice curriculum because it deals directly with the tension between order and liberty, which is involved in every area of criminal justice. A classic exposition of the order-liberty tension in the context of constitutional criminal procedure is Herbert Packer’s “two models of the criminal process” Rather than using the terminology of political theory-“liberty” and “order”-Packer examined the competing values that underlie constitutional order through two models. A model is an abstraction of reality that allows us to better understand the practices and rules of criminal procedure. Packer calls these the Due Process Model and the Crime Control Model. The Due Process Model insists on legal guilt, whereas the Crime Control Model stresses factual guilt. The concept of legal guilt pervades the formal legal and trial process; no matter how factually guilt a person is there can be no conviction and punishment unless the offender is lawfully responsible. We would be able to find such an interesting character throughout criminal procedure and Exclusionary Rule happens to be the most-argued controversy between the two competing values. Exclusionary Rule copes with the exclusion of evidence obtained illegally by government officers. There are disputes between pro- Exclusionary Rule and anti- Exclusionary Rule.
The structure of the dissertation is as follow:
Chapter I illustrates the motivations, methods and realm of this thesis.
Chapter II is the introduction of historical background of Exclusionary Rule: common law background, development, due process revolution, undermining of Exclusionary Rule, and the theories of Exclusionary Rule.
Chapter III is the scope of Exclusionary Rule which includes: the Fourth Amendment, the fifth Amendment, the sixth Amendment, the fourteenth Amendment, the Free and Voluntary Rule, the Delay in Arraignment Rule, the Miranda Rule, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. Hopefully the topic mentioned in this Chapter could render references to our criminal procedure law.
Chapter IV focuses on the rules of excluding evidence in our criminal procedure in the perspective of comparative of law and research the cases made by supreme court, Council of Grand Justices. In addition, try to seek the constitutional status for our Exclusionary Rule.
Chapter V concludes the further discussion on Exclusionary Rule and questions in the foregoing Chapters of this thesis, and the conclusion and suggestions are provided in this Chapter.

並列關鍵字

exclusionary rule ； search and seizure ； fruit of the poisonous tree ； miranda ； wiretapping

參考文獻

Brian Kennedy著，關重熙譯，蔡兆誠校訂，《證據排除法則—以美國加州為例》，律師雜誌，第232期，2000年1月。

林鈺雄，《違法搜索與證據禁止》，台大法學論叢，第28卷第2期，1999年1月。

陳運財，《警訊錄音之研究—最高法院88年度臺上字第5762號刑事判決評釋》，臺灣本土法學雜誌，第24期， 2001年7月。

林鈺雄，《德國證據禁止論之發展與特色》，律師雜誌，第232期，2000年。

陳運財，《禁止夜間詢問之原則》，臺灣本土法學雜誌，第6期，2000年1月。