| 摘要: | 科技輔助跟監為新興刑事偵查手段之一，隨著GPS追蹤、行動電話基地台定位與M化車等技術逐漸普及，檢警機關得以進行更大範圍、持續性與隱密性的監控行動，相較於傳統人力跟監，此類「科技跟監」行為涉及個人隱私、資訊自主與行動自由等基本權益，若欠缺明確法源依據與適當監督機制，將產生侵權與違憲疑慮。為回應此一挑戰，立法院於2024年修正刑事訴訟法，新增第十一章之一「特殊強制處分」，正式將特定科技跟監手段納入法制範圍。
因此，如何在偵查機關運用GPS追蹤、行動電話基地台定位與M化車等高科技手段以提升犯罪偵查效率的同時，與人權保障之間取得均衡，確為當前值得探究之重要課題。本文首先界定跟監之法律意涵，並區分人力與科技兩大類型，繼而探討科技跟監對基本權利之干預程度，進而檢視我國司法實務見解與相關強制處分法理，並分析我國刑事訴訟法新設之「特殊強制處分」規定。其次，本文透過美國在科技偵查制度與司法實務之發展與案例，作為我國立法之比較法借鏡。最後，評析新法條文對於發動主體、啟動門檻、緊急處分、通報義務與資料使用等制度設計是否符合法保原則與比例原則之要求。最後，本文提出修法建議淺見，期能在提升科技偵查效能與保障人民基本權利間取得適切平衡，作為未來持續修法與制度設計之參考。
;Technology-assisted surveillance is becoming an increasingly common tool in criminal investigations. With the widespread use of GPS tracking, cell tower location data, and mobile surveillance vehicles (M-cars), law enforcement agencies can now conduct broader, more continuous, and covert monitoring. Unlike traditional human surveillance, these technological methods raise significant concerns about fundamental rights, including privacy, informational self-determination, and freedom of movement. Without clear legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms, such practices risk violating constitutional rights.
In response to these concerns, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan amended the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2024, adding Chapter 11-1 on “Special Compulsory Measures” to formally regulate certain types of technological surveillance. This research defines the legal concept of surveillance and differentiates between traditional (human) and technology-based forms. It examines the extent to which these practices infringe on fundamental rights, reviews relevant Taiwanese judicial interpretations and legal doctrines, and analyzes the newly implemented regulations. Drawing comparisons with U.S. practices in technological investigations, the paper evaluates whether Taiwan’s new provisions—regarding authorized agencies, legal thresholds, emergency protocols, notification requirements, and data usage—meet the principles of legality and proportionality.
The research concludes with legislative recommendations aimed at striking a balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights, offering insights for future legal reform. |
