偵查機關違法蒐證所得之證據,可透過刑事訴訟法中證據能力之相關規範賦予評價,惟若係由 排除公權力介入之單純私人,透過實施違反實體法之方式取得證據,則該證據之法律效果,無法為 現行刑事訴訟法所規範,因此實務上出現許多不同判斷標準,自應否排除,至排除之標準與法理 依據,莫衷一是而未有定論,有必要為其尋找一套妥適之評價模式。 本文首先自德國證據禁止法則與美國證據排除法則,與我國證據法則出發,並歸納整理目前實 務與學說就私人不法取證之證據能力提出之評價標準,再由比較法上觀察不同法制之處理方式,最 後回歸法律解釋加以探討。此外,本文亦同時就目前實務上之各種處理方式加以評析與提出建議。 由於私人不法取證之證據能力,非屬實體法之規範範圍,因此無法直接依實體法之效果認定其 證據能力,又因規範對象與立法目的之考量,亦無法直接適用或類推適用刑事訴訟法之規定,是以 本文認為,私人不法取證之證據容許性,於立法者制定相關規範前,應先回歸刑事訴訟之目的─ 真實發現與人權保障,以其作為標準,於個案中加以權衡。 因私人不法取證之證據能力確有規範必要,因此未來仍應透過立法者以立法方式,就私人不 法取證之型態與內涵,於刑事訴訟法相關證據能力條文,制定準用規範,以期能自法制面徹底解決 此一困境,為私人不法取證之證據能力提供具體之規範依據。
The evidence illegally obtained by the police or prosecutor, is evaluated by The Code of Criminal Procedure. The admissibility of evidence illegally obtained by private individuals is not regulated by The Code of Criminal Procedure. The practical operations in Taiwan had differences comments on this issue. This essay begins with introducing evidence rules of German, U.S., and Taiwan, simultaneously focus on the admissibility of evidence illegally obtained by private individuals, collects and arranges essays and books of Taiwan Scholars and practical operations, and also compares from the research of German and U.S. law. Finally, the analysis back to the interpretation of the law, and examine the practical operations of Taiwan. In conclusion, the admissibility of evidence illegally obtained by private individuals cannot apply substantive law, and also cannot apply or analogy applies to The Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, before legislation, it should balance the purposes of the criminal proceedings, which are the discovery of reality and the protection of human rights, to determine the admissibility of evidence. But to solve the problem completely, the Code of Criminal Procedure should be amended, and be added mutatis mutandis rule in the future in order to supply the concrete legal norms.