林鈺雄2006-07-252018-07-052006-07-252018-07-052002http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/12834為了發現被告或保全證據之目的，刑事訴訟法創設搜索、扣押的強制處分。 然而，搜索處分，無論是對被告之搜索或對第三人之搜索，都是干預人民基本權 利的處分。發動、執行搜索，可能干預人民住宅不受干擾之權利、隱私權，緊接 著搜索之扣押處分，可能干預人民之財產權利。因此，如何具體設計搜索、扣押 的制度，始能有效追訴犯罪並且又不過度侵害人民基本權利？對於違法的搜索處 分，應該課予如何的法律效果，始能有效控制違法的合法性？這些問題，歷來成 為各國法制的研討重心。 我國刑事訴訟法自制訂以來，原則上雖然要求搜索需用搜索票，但就搜索票 的核發，則以起訴時點為區別標準，偵查中由檢察官核發，審判中則由法官核發。 此項法制之設計，歷來備受批評，批評者認為偵查中之檢察官一方面偵查犯罪， 另一方面卻自行核發搜索票，有違中立的精神，因而主張應該修法，搜索票應一 概由法官核發。民國八十九年下半年，國內發生諸多重大的檢察官搜索事件（如 搜索廖福本立委事件、搜索中時晚報事件）；民國九十年一月，立法院快速通過 搜索改隸法院的修法草案，於民國九十年七月一日正式實施。 採行令狀原則之後，應有哪些配套措施，才能有效控制搜索處分之合法性？ 法院之組織應該如何調整（如應否由專門法官審查？來源有無資歷限制？）？審 查之程序如何設計（如審查之證據法則）？違法搜索的法律效果如何？基於「儘 早研究爭議問題並且提早規劃配套措施」之認識，本研究計畫以本次搜索修法後 衍生問題及其解決對策為主要研究對象，徹底檢討本次立法的利弊得失，並研究 具體的操作基準及配套措施，以供未來學說闡釋及實務運作的參考。Search and seizure are means designed by Criminal Procedure to find the whereabouts of the accused and to prevent the destruction of the evidence. However, a search, either to the accused or the third party, is a violation to the fundamental rights of the people. These rights might be infringed by the execution of a search includes at least the sanity of a person’s house and the right to privacy. Moreover, a seizure, which usually follows a search, shall definitely restrict a person’s right to property. Thus, how should we design a search and seizure system which can effectively prosecute the criminals on one hand and protect the people from overbroad restraint of their fundamental rights on the other hand? What kind of legal effect shall we give to an unlawful search to keep searches in judicial control? For years, those issues have been the focus of study in every legal system. Although search warrants have long been required by law since the enactment of our Criminal Procedure in 1928, the issuance of warrants are not conducted by judges alone. During the investigation phase, i.e., before the indictment being filed, search warrants are issued by Public Prosecutors. This kind of system has long been criticized as violating the principle of neutrality. Since the prosecutors are persons responsible for criminal investigation, they should not conduct the issuance of search warrants. Voice demanding giving the right to issue warrants from prosecutors to judges reached its summit after some prosecutors searched the office of Legislator Liau and China News Daily. As a result, the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to deprive the prosecutors of the right to issue search warrants. After we adopted the new “judge-issued warrants only” system, what kind of counterparts shall we need to make it feasible? Shall we make some change to the organization of our courts, such as setting up highly qualified “investigative judges” who are responsible for the issuance of warrants? How should we design the procedure for the issuance of search warrants, inter alias, the separate rule of evidence? What is the legal effect of unlawful search? “Earlier study, better solution”, this study aims at the issues caused by this recent amendment and their solutions. This study shall analyze the new law and its necessary counterparts thoroughly and draft a manual for the practicing lawyers and judges.application/pdf665406 bytesapplication/pdfzh-TW國立臺灣大學法律學系暨研究所搜索扣押令狀原則偵查法官searchseizurewarrant requirementinvestigatory judge(magistrate)[SDGs]SDG16reporthttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/12834/1/902414H002026.pdf