海關緝私條例中的行政搜索──評臺灣高等法院臺中分院108年度上國字第3號民事判決

Administrative Search in the Customs Anti-smuggling Act: Review of the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Court's 108 Shang-Guo No. 3 Civil Judgement

行政搜索是否適用令狀原則，此一問題在我國學理上討論已久，實務上直到近年來方有判決深入討論海關緝私條例第10條第1項之行政搜索與令狀原則的關係。在美國法制下，行政搜索原則上須取得令狀，但有緊急狀況、當事人同意、嚴格管制行業、邊境搜索等例外情形。本文據此認為，海關緝私條例第10條第1項之搜索係行政搜索中的邊境搜索，屬於令狀原則之例外。海關人員執行此項搜索時，區域限於同法第6條規定之範圍；若依同法第16條第1項規定請求警察機關協助，地點亦受到臺灣地區國際港口及機場檢查工作聯繫作業規定第3點之限制。本文進而指出，前開判決事實中的無令狀搜索因不符合令狀例外而屬違法，且其實質上為刑事搜索，卻以海關緝私條例第10條第1項之行政搜索作為託詞，故其所扣得之證物，經依刑事訴訟法第158條之4規定權衡後，於之後刑事審判時應不得作為不利被告之證據。

It has been widely discussed that whether an administrative search needs a warrant in Taiwan, but the discussions circulate only within the academic groups and barely draw any attention from people engaged in the practice until a recent court decision, which has an in-depth analysis of this question. In the framework of U.S. law, an administrative search must be accompanied by a warrant, unless there are exceptions such as exigent circumstances, consent, closely regulated business, or border search. Accordingly, this article believes that the administrative search stipulated in Section 1 of Article 10 of the Customs Anti-smuggling Act is border search so that it doesn't require a warrant. When Customs conduct such an administrative search of this Section, it must be limited within the area or places indicated in Article 6 of the Customs Anti-smuggling Act. If requesting assistance from the police, per Section 1 of Article 16 of the same act, the location will not be allowed to go beyond the scope stipulated in Rule 3 of the Rules of Communication for Inspection Works in International Ports and Airports in Taiwan. This article also points out that the warrantless search in the forementioned court decision is illegal for it doesn't qualify for any warrant exception. Moreover, this warrantless search is in fact a criminal search rather than an administrative search, but it uses Section 1 of Article 10 of the Customs Anti-smuggling Act as a pretext, so the evidence seized during this pretextual search, after a balancing test in accordance with Article 158-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must be suppressed and cannot be used against the defendant in a subsequent criminal trial.