「自囚」拒絕酒測案之探討──評臺北高等行政法院106年度交字第247號判決

Discussion on Refused to Take the Sobriety Test - Comment on Taipei High Administrative Court Year 106 (NB:2017) Jiao-Zi No. 247

本案爭點在於：警察攔停酒測的判準為何？本文以授權基礎、形式及實質合法性要件三個面向加以評析，提出不同意見。首先，警察職權行使法第8條第1項第3款之標準措施，係危害防止任務之具體化職權，其合憲性經大法官釋字第699號解釋在案，警察因而取得實施酒測的法律依據，人民即有接受酒測檢定的法義務，是為授權基礎。
其次，就形式合法性要件檢視警察職權行使法，一方面，其方式和程序依行政程序法的一般要求，員警在現場得以言詞告知攔停酒測，而開出勸導警告書，既確保駕駛人知的權利，亦符合透過程序保障基本權，且保障當事人通知的程序權；另一方面，基於決定裁量，警察得根據法律授權決定是否、以及於何處設置臨檢點實施攔停酒測，而依反面解釋，攔停包括已停止的車輛，不使之繼續行進。
最後，施以測試在於得知駕駛人體內的酒精濃度，係干預其資訊隱私權，實質合法性植基於合理預測，依據可信的線索，採抽象危害及危害疑慮說，運用危害查探之暫時性干預措施，故警察對駕駛人施以酒測，無違明確性及比例原則，對於警方之下命處分，駕駛人並非「配合」，而是負有忍受義務。

The dispute of this case lies in the criteria for taking a sobriety test by the police. This paper is based on basis of legal authority, formal and substantial elements to analyzes it and propose different opinions. First and foremost, the standard measure of article 8, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3 of Police Power Exercise Act is a specific authority of deterrence of danger. And the constitutionality is explained by J.Y. Interpretation No. 699, basis of legal authority means that police request people to take a sobriety test by regulations explicitly authorized by law.
Secondly, inspects the Police Power Exercise Act on the elements of form legitimacy. On the one hand, the methods and procedures in accordance with the common requests of Administrative Procedure Act, police should first try to advice against the refusal and inform the subject of the legal consequences of refusing the test, in addition, the police writes traffic ticket not only to ensure the driver understands right to know, but also to protect its procedural rights and basic rights through procedure. On the other hand, police should authorized by law to setting stops and request the driver to take a sobriety test. To put it another words, pull over includes stopped vehicle which cannot moving on.
Last but not least, the sobriety test is based on knowing that the concentration of alcohol in the driver's which is interferes its information privacy. Substantive legitimacy is not based on the objective objections but based on a reasonable prediction of the concept of hazard detection. Where danger already exists or may result according to objective and reasonable judgment, the police shall have the right to pull over such transportation vehicles and request the driver to take a sobriety test to determine the alcohol concentration; therefore, the driver shall be obligated to cooperate pursuant to the law.