警察協助取締無人機權責之檢討──以德國警察對秩序機關任務之關係為借鏡

近年來，隨著遙控無人機科技之興起與發展，雖帶來了生活上的便利，但也伴隨著無人機闖入禁航區|限航區，甚至撞擊大樓|墜落傷及人員|物品等意外。政府機關為有效取締違法的遙控無人機，經過立法程序，乃於2018年4月修正公布民用航空法，增訂遙控無人機專章管理。然依修正後民用航空法第99條之13第5項|第6項規定，對於違反該法操控之遙控無人機，分別由民航局會同警察機關取締之，或由航空站|飛行場之經營人|管理人會同航空警察局取締之。且依第7項規定，對於距地表高度不逾400呎（相當於120公尺）在直轄市|縣（市）區域內之違法使用遙控無人機，則由直轄市|縣（市）政府洽請警察機關協助取締之。由上述條文觀之，不論屬何行政機關之管理或取締權責，均設有「警察機關」之會同取締或協助取締權責。如此遙控無人機的取締規範，有無背離戰後德日等國的脫警察化趨勢？適逢警察法檢討修正之際，如何透過警察任務之修正，釐清警察與其他行政機關任務之關係？又關於遙控無人機之管理與取締業務，縱非警察之任務範圍，警察機關應如何定位與該他行政機關任務之關係？應秉持何項原則提供何種協助？均有深入探究之必要。爰本文透過觀察德國警察對其他秩序機關之任務與關係，及該國對遙控無人機之管理與取締，並以之為借鏡來檢討我國警察與其他機關任務之關係，期能釐清警察協助取締無人機之任務與權責，俾有助於合理化警察任務之健全發展。

In recent years, with the rise and development of the new drone technology, it has brought much more conveniences in daily life, but it has also accompanied harmful impacts. For example, the prohibited area and the restricted area of air space were invaded by drones, and they even crashed into buildings, fell and caused injuries and other accidents. In order to more effectively control and ban the illegal uses of the drone, the government authorities amended the civil aviation law in April 2018 to enact the special chapter of drones. However, in accordance with paragraph 5, 6, and 7of Article 99-13 of the Civil Aviation Law, any drone that enters into the prohibited or restricted area without permission shall be terminated or excluded and where necessary, the Civil Aeronautics Administration may be notified to enforce punitive procedures in conjunction with the police agency. Any drone that enters into certain distance from the boundary of an airport or airfield without permission shall be imposed enforcement measures by the operator or administrator of the airport or airfield in conjunction with the Aviation Police Bureau. Any drone that enters into the area not in compliance with the permitted area (with the altitude not exceeding 400 feet above the ground level), time and other administrative items without permission shall be imposed enforcement measures by the relevant municipal and county (city) government. Where necessary, police agency may be notified to assist in the enforcement.In view of the above regulations, no matter which administrative authorities they are, they all require that the police need to provide assistance to other authorities. Are these police power norms of controlling and banning the illegal use of drones against the tendency of the decentralization of police power after World War II in Germany or in Japan? How should we change the missions of police to clarify the relationship and limits between the police and other administrative authorities while the police law is being amended? How to locate the relationship of missions between the police and other administrative authorities, even though the affairs of controlling or banning the illegal uses of drones is not within the missions of the police. What principle should the police base on to provide assistance to them? It is very necessary to do in-depth research on the above themes. Therefore, this article will study the missions and relationship between the police and other administrative authorities, and the drone control regulation in Germany. And take them as a good lesson to review the relationship and limits between the police and other authorities in Taiwan. Finally it anticipates that we may clarify the missions and jurisdiction of police assistance to controlling the illegal uses of the drone, so it helps rationalize the perfect development of police missions.