科技定位監控與犯罪偵查：兼論美國近年GPS追蹤法制及實務之發展

GPS Surveillance and Criminal Investigation: A Lesson from United States v. Jones

李榮耕(Rong-Geng Li)

《臺大法學論叢》 44卷3期 (2015/09) Pp. 871-969

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2015.44.03.04

摘要

由於科學技術的進步，警察機關可以藉由各樣的科技定位技術或設備有效地掌握犯罪嫌疑人的去向。其中典型的例子，便是以GPS追蹤器祕密地知悉特定人的行蹤。這樣的偵查方式固然大幅地提昇了執法官員犯罪偵查能力，降低了人力支出，不過，其同時也引起了不當侵害被追蹤人隱私權的質疑。這裡會存有的難題是，固然科技定位技術可以長時間、不間斷地監控特定人所在，但是其所蒐集取得的都是該特定人於公開場所或公共道路上的活動資訊，何以還會存有隱私侵害？這一篇論文，擬就搜索觀念的流變出發，討論科技定位監控所可能帶來的隱私侵害，並借鏡美國法制的發展，分析我國相關法制，並提出建議。本文認為，人民不會僅因位處於公開場所便完全地失去了其隱私權益，也因為科技定位監控是極為強大的偵查利器，必須要遵循妥適的法定程序，方可發動執行。

關鍵字

隱私 ； 合理隱私期待 ； GPS追蹤器 ； 行動電話位址資訊 ； 跟蹤

並列摘要

Due to rapid development of technology, law enforcement is able to efficiently track suspects with kinds of location technology or equipment. GPS tracking devices are one of them. Location technology or devices significantly enhances the police's ability of investigation and greatly lower their burden. However, the location technology also raises concerns about undue intrusions to those who are targeted. The difficult question is: law enforcement, through location technology, is able to long-term and continuously collect the information about where certain targets are, and the information is all about people's information in public places or roads. How collection of the location constitute intrusions of people's privacy? This article discusses the change of the concepts of search, and privacy intrusions caused by location technology tracking. In addition, we also analyzes the current legal framework with respect to location technology from the lesson learned from the United States. We argue that people do not forfeit their privacy rights merely because they are in public places. In addition, technology tracking should be regulated by strict rules because it is a very powerful investigation tool which may be abused and cause improper intrusions to people's privacy.

並列關鍵字

privacy ； reasonable expectation of privacy ； GPS tracking device ； cellphone location information ； tracking

參考文獻

李榮耕（2009）。〈個人資料外洩及個資外洩通知條款的立法芻議〉，《東吳法律學報》，20 卷4 期，頁251-92。

李榮耕（2010），〈論偵查機關對通信紀錄的調取〉，《政大法學評論》，115 期，頁115-147。

林鈺雄（2007）。〈干預保留與門檻理論：司法警察（官）一般調查權限之理論檢討〉，《政大法學評論》，96 期，頁189-232。

許恒達（2010）。〈通訊隱私與刑法規制：論「通訊保障及監察法」的刑事責任〉，《東吳法律學報》，21 卷3 期，頁109-159。

Amsterdam, A. G. (1974). Perspective on the Fourth Amendment. Minnesota Law Review, 58, 349-478.