私人逮捕現行犯之客觀前提要件──由德國刑事訴訟法第127條暫時逮捕之規定出發

The Objective Requirements of Citizen's Arrest of Persons in Flagrante Delicto: A Comparative Study of the Provisional Arrest in the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)

本文將自比較法的觀點，探討私人發動逮捕的意義與實質原因，並論述德國法暫時逮捕制度特有之規範結構與解釋論上之爭論。針對發動現行犯逮捕之客觀前提要件，德國法有非常詳盡的學說討論，因此本文在第一部分的理論探討之後，第二部分擬介紹德國相關的學說與實務判決，供我國之借鏡。於第三部分，本文將對德國學界所提出的各種解釋模式進行分析檢討，從私人逮捕作為阻卻違法事由之特性出發，指出德國學界單一模式全面適用的不當。並在釐清私人逮捕之特殊性與法理根據後，重新界定事中觀點與事後觀點在私人逮捕法制中之運用。經由分析私人逮捕作為緊急權的實質理由與制度功能，本文另主張，私人逮捕尚應受到「在場要求」的限制。最後，將針對本文論述的重點，積極提出我國私人現行犯逮捕法律解釋上應有之方向。

The law of flagrante delicto arrest is a common feature of many criminal codes. This law generally allows any private citizen to pursue and arrest a person in flagrante delicto without a warrant. Article 88, Paragraph 2 of the Taiwanese Criminal Procedure Code defines a person in flagrante delicto as someone discovered in the act of committing an offense or immediately thereafter. Further, Paragraph 3 states that a person is considered to be in flagrante delicto when he is pursued by someone who is calling him a criminal (also known as the law of hue and cry). The current criminal justice literature lacks a comprehensive understanding of flagrante delicto as a model of arrest. Noticeably missing is a clear explanation of the logical relationship between Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3. This article aims to review the law of flagrante delicto arrest from various perspectives, including: the appropriateness of such legislations; the axiomatic principle of the state's monopoly of the legitimate use of violence; the nature of flagrante delicto; and, comparative legal analysis.