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

Abstract

國家機關干預人民受憲法保障的基本權，必須事先取得明確的法律授權基礎，始得為之，這是法律保留原則的基本要求。但因當代基本權干預概念及法律保留領域的雙重擴張現象，使刑事訴訟領域鉅細靡遺之立法授權難以達成，因此，遂有門檻理論之提出，試圖層級化刑事訴訟之基本權干預，並承認在一定門檻以下的微量干預措施，司法警察（官）得以一般調查權限之條款作為干預的授權基礎。本文首先從干預概念及法律保留的變遷與困境出發，並將層級化法律保留連結到修正的門檻理論，結論認為應承認司法警察（官）之一般調查權限，作為無強制力且質量輕微之資訊干預基礎，但這不能架空法律保留的要求，故已經立法特別授權之清單、憲法之古典權利清單或涉及刑法構成要件的干預性偵查措施，皆不得援引一般調查權限作為干預的授權基礎；反之，上開所示以外僅涉及一般人格權或資訊自決權的非強制性干預措施，原則上可以援引一般調查權限作為干預基礎，僅生比例原則之問題。本文最後並例示各種警察調查活動之運用結果。

When the government seeks to impinge upon the fundamental rights which are protected by the constitution, it must obtain a definite authority of law because it is a basic demand of the principle of legal reservation. However, it is very difficult to achieve the goal of establishing a detailed and complete legislative authority in the field of criminal procedure, due to the existence of the phenomenon of double extension between the conception of interference of fundamental rights and the domain of legal reservation. This article starts from the discussion of the classification of legal reservation. Then it proceeds to analyse the Doorsill theory and comments on its merits and defects.