监听侦查的法治实践:美国经验与中国路径
曾赟监听侦查的法治实践:美国经验与中国路径
Surveillance and Wiretapping under the Rule of Law: American Experiences and Chinese Approaches
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：曾赟
单位：
中文关键词：监听侦查;隐私权;程序性正当程序;实体性正当程序
英文关键词：surveillance and wiretapping;right of privacy;procedural due process;substantive due process
中文摘要：
20世纪50年代,我国侦查机关就开始采用耳目监听等秘密方式收集违法犯罪证据。20世纪90年代至21世纪初,国家安全机关、公安机关、检察机关的监听侦查行为相继得到合法化。在这一合法化过程中,我国监听侦查法治实践主要从构建“附需要理由的严格批准程序”和满足“侦查犯罪的需要”的实体性程序这两个方面展开,公民宪法上的隐私权并未在这一过程中得到体现。为保护公民宪法上的隐私权免受监听侦查权的任意侵害,我国监听侦查法治实践应沿着程序性正当程序与实体性正当程序的构建渐次推进。首先,发展宪法上隐私权对监听侦查的防御功能;其次,通过不同层级法院许可令的构建,创设程序性正当程序的控权机制;再次,通过廓清犯罪调查的一般需要与超越法律执行一般需要的特别需要之间的界线,建立隐私期待的适当性和“特别需要”原则这两个实体性正当程序审查标准。
英文摘要：
In the 1950s, investigation organs in China began to make use of such methods of secret criminal investigation as eyes and ears to collect criminal evidences. From the 1990s to the early twenty-first Century, surveillance and wiretapping by national security organs, public security organs and procuratorial organs had received legislative authorization one after another. During this long process of legalization, the goal of putting surveillance and wiretapping under the rule of law in China has been realized mainly through the creation of “strict procedure of approval based on the need of criminal investigation” and the construction of substantive process that meets the need of criminal investigation. However, the citizen's constitutional right of privacy had not been given due consideration in this process. In order to protect the citizen's constitutional right of privacy against arbitrary infringement by the government power of surveillance and wiretapping, the practice of surveillance and wiretapping of China should be gradually put under the orbit of the rule of law through the creation of procedural due process and substantive due process. Firstly, the defensive function of constitutional right of privacy against power of surveillance and wiretapping should be developed; secondly, a mechanism of procedural due process for the control of power should be established through the construction of a system of court order at different levels; and thirdly, a standard for the review of substantive due process on the basis of appropriateness of private expectation and special needs should be established by making a distinction between general needs of criminal investigation and special needs beyond law enforcement.
全文阅读： 点击下载
