線上搜索之合憲性分析──評德國刑事訴訟法相關規範

Analysis of the Constitutionality of Online Search: Commentary on Relevant Regulations of the German Code of Criminal Procedure

在數位科技時代之下，犯罪之手法推陳出新，犯罪之型態也日趨多元，對於偵查之有效性造成挑戰。在德國新修正的刑事訴訟法中，授權偵查機關得實施線上搜索，即以植入木馬之方式，秘密性地全面監控相對人的資訊科技系統之使用行為。鑑於此一手段對於人民基本權之強烈干預性，線上搜索制度是否得以通過比例原則之檢驗，即有所疑問，相關爭議案件亦在德國聯邦憲法法院審理中。 本文首先依照德國刑事訴訟法的規範架構，分別對於發動干預之條件、受干預之對象、事前之義務、程序上之限制，到取證上之限制以及事後之通知義務進行介紹。在對於規範圖像有所掌握之下，進而以對基本權限制之干預審查體系為架構，進行合憲性審查，並藉由此一分析提出對未來我國擬繼受而加以法制化時應注意之要點。舉例而言，犯罪目錄須緊扣特別重要之法益及對網路犯罪之偵查有效性，在手段上除了補充性條款之要求外，也須注意干預之總期間不得毫無上限，且須有更嚴謹之手段確保私人生活之核心領域不受干預。

In the era of digital technology, criminal methods are innovating, thus leading to increasingly diverse crime patterns, all of which pose challenges to the effectiveness of criminal investigation. To tackle such challenges, in the newly-revised German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozesordnung, StPO), investigative agencies are authorized to conduct online searches (Online- Durchsuchungen), which allow the implanting of Trojan horse malware to achieve the purpose of secret and comprehensive surveillance of the opposite party's use of the information technology system. In view of the serious interference of the aforementioned measure on the citizens' fundamental rights, it remains questionable whether the online search system conforms to the principle of proportionality, and this dispute is currently under trial of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG). To review the measure and relevant regulations, the present research first introduces the online search system in accordance with its legal framework. Building on the understanding of the system's legal framework and relevant regulations, the study then conducts a constitutionality review on the restrictions of fundamental rights incurred by the system. Such analysis seeks to shed light on the dispute over the constitutionality of the online search system, and can serve as reference guidelines when the reception and legalization of the system is to be adopted in Taiwan in the future. For example, the list of criminal offences (Straftatenkatalog) must be correspond to the particularly important set of legal interests and must be directly conducive to the effectiveness of the investigation of cybercrime. In terms of measure, in addition to the requirements of supplementary clauses, it is also necessary to note that the duration of interference must be limited in accordance with the specific details of the crime. What is more, it is obligatory that more rigorous legal means be provided to ensure that the core areas of the opposite party's private life (Kernbereich privater Lebensgestaltung) is not intruded.