現行法下GPS追蹤定位偵查行為之合法性與立法方向——比較法觀點與最高法院106年度臺上字第3788號判決之考察

The Interpretation and Legislative Policy About the Legality of the GPS Surveillance and Investigation in Taiwan: A Study of the Supreme Court Judgment in 2017 from a Comparative Law Perspective

最高法院於106年度臺上字第3788號判決中，認為透過GPS追蹤器進行跟監之行為，侵害憲法第22條保障之隱私權，構成強制處分，並建議應儘速針對法定要件與事後救濟，進行立法。對此，本文選擇強制處分判斷基準及論述脈絡與我國判決相似之日本最高裁判所平成29年3月15日大法庭判決作為比較對象。首先，本文對該判決中關於使用GPS偵查侵害日本憲法第35條之權利的性質、造成權利侵害的行為方式等構成強制處分的理由，進行說明。接著，透過比較判決，認為GPS偵查全面性、持續性取得被偵查者位置資訊，並透過儲存與分析資訊，解析其生活樣貌，侵害憲法上保障之隱私權，屬於強制處分。未來，建議以控制取得資訊量為立法方向，透過事前令狀審查與事後通知，保障受偵查者之權利。

This article aims to reexamine the nature and the legitimacy of using GPS tracking device for investigation in the current era of rapid development of technology. In 2017, the Taiwan Supreme Court ruled that using GPS tracking device violates the right of privacy guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution and thus constitutes a law enforcement. In order to further investigate the superiority or inferiority of that Supreme Court’s judgment, this Article aims to discuss the Judgment of Supreme Court of Japan dated March 15 2017 through the perspective of comparative law since the aforementioned judgment is similar to Taiwan’s judicial ruling in the terms of law enforcement. The discussion on the nature of using GPS tracking device in Japan’s judgment is then analyzed and compared with the judgment of Taiwan. It is then proposed that collecting and storing the location data of a certain target with GPS tracking device continuously and in the longterm—as well as using the collected data to analyze the target’s everyday life—is a violation of privacy. Consequently, the use of GPS tracking device should be considered as a form of Prosecutors’ Order. In conclusion, it is suggested that before the legislation of using GPS tracking device in The Code of Criminal Procedure, neither public prosecutor, judicial officer nor judicial policeman should have the right to use such form of investigation. In the future, it is recommended that a law that controls and limits the amount of information acquired from the certain target whose movement is under surveillance should be legislated. The privacy of people should also be protected through the warrant requirement and the formal notification after the surveillance.