美、德监听令状外获得材料作为证据使用的考察——兼议我国《刑事诉讼法》第152条与第150条第3款

发布时间：2018-07-09 17:04

本文选题：监听 + 司法令状　；参考：《环球法律评论》2013年04期

【摘要】：美国与德国从宪法或者基本法保障人权的立场出发,不仅对监听实行司法令状,而且对监听令状外获得的材料作为证据使用在立法上也作了严格限制。尽管立法与司法实践对监听措施保持审慎的态度,其例外在美国法院判例上仅限于"一览无余"原则和德国法院仅存"关联性"衡量标准,但因涉及公民的宪法性权利在理论和立法上仍颇有争议,从中折射出公民隐私权保障与监听技术有效性在侦查上的紧张关系。我国修改后的《刑事诉讼法》将技术侦查作为侦查措施仅采用了行政性内部审批制度,这种内控模式还需要从美、德监听令状外获得材料作为证据使用的观点分歧与立法争议中获得启示,继而建立起相应的限制使用规则并对其规定作出合理解释,以免实施之时成为滥用之日。
[Abstract]:From the standpoint of protecting human rights in the constitution or the basic law, the United States and Germany not only enforce judicial writ on surveillance, but also restrict strictly the use of materials obtained outside the writ as evidence in legislation. Although legislative and judicial practice are cautious about wiretapping, the exception is limited to the "one-size-fits-all" principle in the jurisprudence of the United States and the mere "relevance" measure in the German courts. However, the constitutional rights of citizens are still controversial in theory and legislation, which reflects the tense relationship between the protection of citizens' privacy and the effectiveness of monitoring technology in investigation. The revised Criminal procedure Law of our country only adopts the administrative internal examination and approval system as an investigative measure, and this internal control mode still needs to be improved from the perspective of the United States. The differences of views on the use of material as evidence outside the writ of listening and the controversy over legislation are revealed, and the corresponding rules of restriction are set up and explained reasonably, so as not to become the date of abuse when they are put into practice.
【作者单位】：中央财经大学法学院;
【基金】：2010年教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目《技术侦查法治化:从制度化规制到诉讼化制约》(课题编号:10YJA820026)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】