非實體侵入隱私空間的監看（錄）處分

Nontrespassory Surveillance to Areas Where Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Exist

2024年，立法者增訂了刑事訴訟法第153條之3，規範就具有合理隱私期待的空間，進行非實體侵入性的監看或監錄處分。由於此一型態的強制處分首度規範於我國法制，其要件及程序是否能夠同時滿足保障人民隱私及有效打擊犯罪的需要，有深入分析的必要。在借鏡了美國聯邦最高法院在Kyllo v. United States案中關於熱顯像儀的判定及說理，以及紐約州的影像監控法制等規範後，這一篇論文針對這一個條文中，「重罪」原則的規定、發動此一處分的實質理由（相當理由及有事實足認的區分）、相當理由的概念、最後手段性的要求、合理隱私期待的判斷基準、非實體侵入性及科技方法的概念、無人機的使用、緊急情況的規範、事後通知、事後救濟、證據排除規則的適用，以及外部監督等，都提出了在具體個案中解釋適用的具體建議或平釋，日後修法的方向，也一併指出。

In 2024, legislators introduced Article 153-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regulating non-trespassory surveillance in areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. As this type of coercive measure is being regulated for the first time under our legal framework, it is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis to determine whether the established requirements and procedures can sufficiently balance the protection of individual privacy with the need for effective criminal investigations. This new provision raises complex legal and practical issues, particularly because modern surveillance technologies—such as video surveillance and thermal imaging—present challenges to traditional privacy doctrines. This paper draws upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Kyllo v. United States, which dealt with the use of thermal imaging technology, as well as New York State’s regulatory framework for video surveillance. These precedents offer valuable insights into how courts and lawmakers can regulate non-trespassory monitoring techniques while safeguarding fundamental rights. The analysis provided in this paper addresses several critical aspects. Key issues include: the principle of restricting the use of surveillance to “serious offenses” only; clarifying the substantive grounds for initiating such measures by distinguishing between probable cause and “there are facts sufficient to justify a conclusion;” interpreting the concept of probable cause in surveillance contexts; ensuring that surveillance is employed only as a last resort; defining standards for assessing reasonable expectations of privacy; distinguishing between non-physical intrusion and other technological means; the use of drones for law enforcement purposes; procedures for dealing with emergencies; post notice; post-surveillance remedies; the application of the exclusionary rule to improperly obtained evidence; and the role of external oversight in ensuring accountability. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive framework for interpreting and applying Article 153-3 in a way that both protects individual rights and strengthens law enforcement operations. Additionally, it proposes future legislative amendments to address evolving challenges posed by new surveillance technologies.