行車記錄器影音記錄作為刑事訴訟程序證據之研究──以私人違法取證為討論核心

A Study of Dash Cam Video Recordings as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Focusing on Private Illegal Evidence Collection

行車記錄器廣泛應用於交通事故之釐清，但其影音資料能否作為刑事訴訟中的證據仍具爭議。行車記錄器資料可能侵害德國基本法所保障的一般人格權，因此可否依聯邦個資法第4條作為授權基礎存在不同見解。本文在否定說之基礎上，進一步探討私人違反取證究否適用刑事訴訟法有關證據禁止之規定。在我國，行車記錄器資料可能侵害憲法第22條保障之資訊隱私權，惟無法以個資法提供授權依據而屬私人不法取證。又私人不法取證有無證據能力，本文認為，考量刑事訴訟之目的乃發現真實、法治程序與法和平性，應視若使用該私人不法取得之證據對於刑事訴訟法治程序減損是否可以透過追訴利益加以正當化來判斷有無證據能力。最後，相較於德國法已意識到行車記錄器影音資料在證據使用上的諸多問題，我國對此並未有深入的討論，希冀可藉此論文促使對此問題的重視。

Dashboard cameras are widely used to clarify traffic accidents, however, the admissibility of their audio-visual data as evidence in criminal proceedings remains controversial. In Germany, dashboard camera data may infringe upon the general right of personality protected by the Basic Law, leading to differing interpretations on whether Federal Data Protection Act Article 4 can serve as a legal basis for authorization. Based on the negative view, this paper further explores whether regulations concerning the exclusion of evidence in criminal procedure law apply to private illegal evidence collection. In our country (Taiwan), dashboard camera data may violate the right to information privacy protected under Article 22 of the Constitution, and since the authorization cannot be provide by Personal Data Protection Act, it constitutes illegal private evidence collection. Regarding the admissibility of illegally obtained private evidence, this paper argues that, considering the purposes of criminal proceedings - discovering truth, maintaining due process, and legal peace - the admissibility should be determined by whether the damage to criminal procedural due process from using such illegally obtained private evidence can be justified by prosecution interests. Finally, compared to German law, which has recognized various issues concerning the evidentiary use of dashboard camera footage, there has been limited discussion of this topic in Taiwan. This paper aims to promote greater attention to this issue.