查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 警察取締酒後駕車攔檢相關執法問題之研究=A Study on Police Stop and Check Legal Issues While Enforcing DUI |
---|---|
作 者 | 蔡庭榕; | 書刊名 | 交通學報 |
卷 期 | 15:2 2015.11[民104.11] |
頁 次 | 頁225-245 |
分類號 | 575.86 |
關鍵詞 | 酒後駕車; 攔檢; 呼氣檢測; 強制抽血檢測; Driving under influence; DUI; Stop and check; Breathalyzer test; Nonconsensual blood test; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 我國對取締酒後駕車之攔檢屬於警察執法程序上之職權規範,主要以警職法第6條至第8條之查證身分及刑訴法第205之1條之強制抽血取證為依據,以作為制裁處罰之基礎,來達成維護交通安全與秩序。然而,近來在警察攔檢取締執法上不罰爭議案例或法制問題待研議。例如,在警察取締酒駕職權行使上,臺灣桃園地方法院行政訴訟102年度交字第293號判決酒駕攔檢拒測處罰之撤銷案、最高行政法院判決103年度判字第174號裁判要旨關於「警察對疑似酒後駕車者實施酒測之程序,及受檢人如拒絕接受酒測,警察應先行勸導並告知拒絕之法律效果,如受檢人仍拒絕接受酒測,始得加以處罰」之取締酒駕程序之相關法律見解是。甚至進一步有關從拒絕呼氣酒測到強制抽血檢測等職權程序問題,以及參考美國聯邦最高法院以2013年Missouri v. McNeely判例推翻過去之1966年Schmerber v. California判例,而主張拒絕呼氣酒測被帶至醫院抽血仍非得以急迫而免除法官之令狀保留之法律見解,均值得引進研析以作為我國取締酒駕執法之改進參考。因此,本文旨在探討警察取締酒後駕車攔檢之職權程序之相關執法問題。 |
英文摘要 | The stop and check enforcement on drunk driving is authorized by the police power enforce procedure law, mainly based on ID check of police law Article 6 to Article 8 and nonconsensual blood test of Article 205-1 of the Criminal Procedural Law, for the foundation of punishment to maintain traffic safety and order. However, recently there were a lot of disputes of non-punishment cases or legal problems that need to be solved. For example, regarding police enforcing stop and check, Taiwan Taoyuan District court administrative litigation of year 2013 Number 293 court decision ordained the cancellation case of punishment on resisting drunk driving test. The Supreme Administrative Court year 2014 Number 174 decision ordained its legal opinion on ”…regulated the procedure for the police to perform sobriety tests on those suspected of driving under influence. If the subject refuses to take the sobriety test, the police should first try to advice against the refusal and inform the subject of the legal consequences of refusing the test. If the subject continues to refuse the sobriety test, a penalty shall be imposed.” Furthermore, discussion related to due process of law issues from refusing Breathalyzer Test to Nonconsensual Blood Test was performed. This study also referred the USA Federal Supreme Court case of Missouri v. McNeely (2013) which overruled the Schmerber v. California (1966) case. The Missouri v. McNeely (2013) case advocates the drunk driver should be taken to the hospital for further blood test without warrant when the drunk driver resists breathalyzer test. The statement above is worth of studying and referring to improve the law enforcement on drunk driving in Taiwan. Therefore, the object of this study is to investigate related police stop and check legal issues while enforcing DUI. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。