English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23470920      Online Users : 219
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124455


    Title: 論通訊保障及監察法第18條之1第3項的證據排除規定
    The Exclusionary Rule in the Communication Security and Surveillance Act
    Authors: 李榮耕
    Contributors: 法學評論
    Keywords: 通訊監察;監聽;違法通訊監察;違法監察;證據排除;核心地位規定
    Communication Surveillance;Interception;Unlawful Communication Surveillance;Unlawful Interception;The Exclusionary Rule of Evidence;Central-Role Provision
    Date: 2019-03
    Issue Date: 2019-07-24 16:07:09 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 為了促使偵查機關遵循通訊保障及監察法的各樣法定程序,立法者於該法中制定有證據排除的規定。該條的規範模式與刑事訴訟法的類似規定相當不同,是以特定條文的違反為適用的要件。這樣的立法方式,同時有著涵蓋過廣及過窄的問題。亦即,並不是所有第5條或第6條所規定所有的事項或程序,都應有證據排除規定的適用,該二條以外的條文也不當然就沒有適用證據排除規定的需要。在參考美國的立法例後,我們的建議是,通訊保障及監察法的證據排除規定應以「通訊監察違法」為要件。再者,在判斷是否構成違法的通訊監察時,可以借鏡美國聯邦最高法院於Giordano案及Chavez案所建立的雙階審查理論,決定是否排除所取得的通訊內容。
    In order to make the law enforcement complies with the procedureset by the Communication Security and Surveillance Act (CSSA), thelegislators enacted a provision with respect to the exclusionary rule ofevidence in that act. Only if the police force is in violation of art. 5 or 6,the exclusionary rule in the CSSA applies, which is different from thesimilar provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, theexclusionary rule in the CSSA has two issues: over-coverage and undercoverage.Not all violation of those requirements in art. 5 and 6 shouldbe applied by the exclusionary rule. In addition, the aforementioned ruleshould apply to violation of certain provisions other than art. 5 and 6.After referring to the legal framework of the United States, it isrecommended that the exclusionary rule of the CSSA should be revised.The said rule should apply when the interception is unlawful. Moreover,according to the two-level test established by Giordano and Chavez,courts should look into whether the violated provision plays a central role in the communication surveillance law, and then determine whetherthe police substantially disobey the provision at issue. If so, theviolation constitutes unlawful interception and the exclusionary ruleapplies.
    Relation: 法學評論, 156, 261-311
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/ 10.3966/102398202019030156004
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202019030156004
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    79.pdf595KbAdobe PDF18View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback