English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92416/122720 (75%)
Visitors : 26258834      Online Users : 122
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96706


    Title: 干預保留與門檻理論——司法警察(官)一般調查權限之理論檢討
    Other Titles: he Doorsill Theory: A Study on the Investigative Authority of the Police
    Authors: 林鈺雄
    LIN, Yu-hsiung
    Keywords: 基本權;基本權干預;強制處分;法律保留原則;層級化法律保留;門檻理論;司法警察之調查權限
    Fundamental Rights;Interference;Principle of Legal Reservation;Classification of Legal Reservation;Doorsill Theory
    Date: 2007-04
    Issue Date: 2016-05-19 11:39:59 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 國家機關干預人民受憲法保障的基本權,必須事先取得明確的法律授權基礎,始得為之,這是法律保留原則的基本要求。但因當代基本權干預概念及法律保留領域的雙重擴張現象,使刑事訴訟領域鉅細靡遺之立法授權難以達成,因此,遂有門檻理論之提出,試圖層級化刑事訴訟之基本權干預,並承認在一定門檻以下的微量干預措施,司法警察(官)得以一般調查權限之條款作為干預的授權基礎。本文首先從干預概念及法律保留的變遷與困境出發,並將層級化法律保留連結到修正的門檻理論,結論認為應承認司法警察(官)之一般調查權限,作為無強制力且質量輕微之資訊干預基礎,但這不能架空法律保留的要求,故已經立法特別授權之清單、憲法之古典權利清單或涉及刑法構成要件的干預性偵查措施,皆不得援引一般調查權限作為干預的授權基礎;反之,上開所示以外僅涉及一般人格權或資訊自決權的非強制性干預措施,原則上可以援引一般調查權限作為干預基礎,僅生比例原則之問題。本文最後並例示各種警察調查活動之運用結果。
    When the government seeks to impinge upon the fundamental rights which are protected by the constitution, it must obtain a definite authority of law because it is a basic demand of the principle of legal reservation. However, it is very difficult to achieve the goal of establishing a detailed and complete legislative authority in the field of criminal procedure, due to the existence of the phenomenon of double extension between the conception of interference of fundamental rights and the domain of legal reservation. This article starts from the discussion of the classification of legal reservation. Then it proceeds to analyse the Doorsill theory and comments on its merits and defects.
    Relation: 法學評論, 96, 189-232
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    96(189-232).pdf909KbAdobe PDF1049View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback