第五章 本文結論
第三節 資訊使用限制
在行政機關已取得由當事人提供之資訊的情形，應禁止刑事機關任意向行政 機關調取資料。若刑事機關有此需求，須經法院判斷其是否符合上述既成結論判准，
以達合理特定門檻的其他證據消弭當事人提出行為的供述性。即使當事人未提出 不自證己罪特權的抗辯，法院仍應主動審查機關間有無不當的資訊流用，並在刑事 審判程序中發生證據使用禁止的效果。以此作法應能在確保行政體系運作的同時，
避免刑事機關以行政程序掩人耳目，間接強迫當事人提供自我入罪的資訊。
不自證己罪特權雖為法治國家普遍承認的價值，但具體落實並非易事。本文由 歐洲人權法院及美國聯邦最高法院的實踐，歸納得知其均未採絕對保障的觀點。政 府得課與人民在行政或刑事程序中配合調查的義務，但也因屬於資訊提供，而須受 不自證己罪特權的檢驗。至於個案中有無不自證己罪特權的適用，首要關鍵應在於 區分資訊提供義務的類型。經立法者審慎權衡個人訴訟權保障及公共利益，以及設 定個案由法院介入審查的程序，以避免政府恣意取證。
參考文獻
22. 黃朝義（2009），《刑事訴訟法》，台北：新學林。
19. 陳文貴（2009），〈行政調查與行政檢查及行政搜索之法律關係〉，《法令月刊》， 60 卷 3 期，頁 67-87。
20. 游明得（2015），〈論刑事訴訟法中酒駕強制呼氣檢查規定之妥當性〉，《法令月 刊》，66 卷 11 期，頁 41-58。
21. 黃惠婷（2013），〈司法警察之身體採證權〉，《警察法學》，頁 157-192。
22. 蔡榮耕（2008），〈Yes, I do!—同意搜索與第三人同意搜索〉，《月旦法學雜誌》， 157 期，頁 102-125。
23. 蕭文生（2007），〈論當事人協力義務─以行政執行制度為例〉，《政大法學評 論》，95 期，頁 127-173。
24. 蕭宏宜（2012），〈同意搜索的自願性判斷標準─評最高法院 100 年度台上字 第 376 號刑事判決〉，《法令月刊》，63 卷 8 期，頁 28-43。
25. 謝志鴻（2009），〈同意搜索〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，165 期，頁 231-244。
26. 齋野彦弥、李茂生（2012），〈從德日台三方觀點論不能安全駕駛罪之本質——
從日本法之角度〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，頁 105-115。
（三）學位論文（依作者姓氏筆畫順序排列）
1. 王柏鈞（2013），《提出命令之研究》，國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。
2. 徐政宏（2012），《刑事程序檢查身體處分之研究─以拒絕自我入罪特權之分析 為重心》，私立東海大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
3. 郭峻豪（2012），《論證人刑事豁免制度—以美國法為借鏡》，國立臺灣大學法 律學研究所碩士論文。
4. 陳筱萍（2005），《對被告之侵犯性身體檢查》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩 士論文。
5. 楊朝鈞（2015），《行政調查可否適用不自證己罪原則─以稅務調查為例》，國 立高型大學政治法律學系碩士論文。
6. 蔡鎮宇（2007），《行政法強制揭露義務與不自證己罪權利之關係─以美國法為 核心》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
7. 蘇凱平（2009），《政府密匿特權與刑事審判─以美國法為借鏡》，國立臺灣大 學法律學研究所碩士論文。
二、英文書目
（一）專書與專書論文（依作者姓氏字母順序排列）
1. Andrew Ashworth, Mike Redmayne (2010), The Criminal Process, 4th ed., US: Oxford University Press.
2. Sara Sun Beale, William C. Bryson, James E. Felman, Michael J. Elston (2008), Grand Jury Law and Practice, 2nd ed., US : West.
3. Susan W. Brenner, Lori E. Shaw (2006), Federal Grand Jury, a Guide to Law and
Practice, 2nd ed., US: West.
4. Caroline Cauffman & Qian Hao (2016), In Procedural Rights in Competition Law in the EU and China, DE: Springer.
5. Andrew L-T Choo (2013), The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Criminal Justice, UK: Hart.
6. Ryan Goss (2014), Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, US: Hart.
7. Paul Grice (1991), Studies in the way of words, US: Harvard University Press 8. D.J. Harris, M. O'Boyle, E. P. Bates, C. M. Buckley (2009), Law of the European
Convention on Human Rights, 2nd ed., US: Oxford University Press
9. Jerold H. Israel, Wayne R. LaFave (2014), Criminal Procedure: Constitutional Limitations in a Nutshell, US: West.
10. John D. Jackson, Sarah J. Summers (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King, Orin S. Kerr, Eve Brensike Primus (2015), Basic Criminal Procedure, 14th ed., US : West.
12. Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King (2004), Criminal Procedure, 4th ed., US: West.
13. Stefan Trechsel (2005), Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, US: Oxford University Press.
14. Charles H. Whitebread, Christopher Slobogin (2008), Criminal Procedure, and Analysis of cases and Concepts, 5th ed., US: Foundation Press.
（二）期刊論文（依作者姓氏字母順序排列）
1. Akhil Reed Amar & Renée B. Lettow (1995), Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause, 93 Mich. L. Rev. 857. 857-928.
2. Ronald J. Allen & M. Kristin Mace (2004), The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained and its Future Predicted, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 94, No. 2, 243-294.
3. Andrew Ashworth (2008), Self-Incrimination in European Human Rights Law - A Pregnant Pragmatism?, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 751-774.
4. Mark Berger (2006), Europeanizing Self-Incrimination: The Right to Remain Silent in the European Court of Human Rights, Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 12, 340-362.
5. Lance Cole (2002), Fifth Amendment and Compelled Production of Personal Documents after United States v. Hubbell – New Protection for Private Papers, 29 Am. J. Crim. L., 123-192.
6. Dov Fox & Alex Stein (2015), Dualism and Doctrine, 90 Ind. L.J. 975-1010.
7. E. Martin Estrada (2005), Criminalizing Silence: Hiibel and the Continuing Expansion of the Terry Doctrine, 49 St. Louis U. L.J., 279-318.
8. Nita A. Farahany (2012), Incriminating Thoughts, 64 Stan. L. Rev., 351-408.
9. Mark A. Cowen (2010), The Act-of-Production Privilege Post-Hubbell: United States v. Ponds and the Relevance of the Reasonable Particularity and Foregone Conclusion Doctrines, 17 Geo. Mason L. Rev., 863-887.
10. Peter Olive (2015), Companies and Their Fundamental Rights: A Comparative Perspective, 64 International and Comparative Law Quarterly.
11. Michael S. Pardo (2005), Disentangling the Fourth Amendment and the Self-Incrimination Clause, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 1857-1903.
12. Michael S. Pardo (2008), Self-Incrimination and the Epistemology of Testimony, 30 Cardozo L. Rev., 1023-1046.
13. Stephen A. Saltzburg (1986), The Required Records Doctrine: Its Lessons for the Privilege against Self-Incrimination, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev., 6-44.
14. Richard Sobel & John A. Fennel (2007), Troubles with Hiibel: How the Court Inverted the Relationship between Citizens and the State, 48 S. Tex. L. Rev. 613-643.
15. William J. Stuntz (1988), Self-Incrimination and Excuse, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1227, 1227-1296.
16. William J. Stuntz (1995), Privacy’s Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure, 93 MICH. L. REV. 1016-1078.
（三）法學裁判（依判決字首字母順序排列）
【美國法院】
1. Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549 (1990).
2. Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 347 (1976).
3. Bellis v. United States, 417 us. 85, 88 (1974) 4. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 (1984).
5. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
6. Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988) 7. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
8. Brown v. Walker 161 U.S. 591 (1896).
9. California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) 10. Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322
11. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892).
12. Fisher v. Unites States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
13. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967).
14. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 614 (1965
15. Grosso v. United States 390 U.S. 62 (1968) 16. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).
17. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).
18. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951).
19. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972).
20. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).
21. Marchetti v. United States 390 U.S. 39 (1968).
22. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
23. Ohio v. Reiner, 523 U.S. 17 (2001).
24. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990).
25. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291,301 (1980).
26. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
27. Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948) 28. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983).
29. Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
30. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956) 31. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).
32. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984).
33. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
34. United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991).
35. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927) 36. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
37. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944).
【美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院】
1. Carey v. Nev. Gaming Control Bd., 279 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2002) 2. United States v. Greenfield, 831 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2016).
【歐洲人權法院】
1. Allen v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 10 September 2002, no. 76574/01.
2. Condron v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 2 May 2000, no. 35718/97.
3. Funke v. France, Judgement of 25 February 1993, no. 10828/84.
4. Gäfgen v. Germany, Judgement of 1 June 2010, no. 22978/05.
5. Heaney and McGuiness v. Ireland, Judgement of 21 December 2000, no.
34720/97.
6. J.B. v. Switzerland, Judgement of 3 May 2001, no. 31827/96.
7. Jalloh v. Germany, Judgement of 11 July 2006, no. 54810/00.
8. John Murray v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 8 February 1996, no. 18731/91.
9. Kansal v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 27 April 2004, no. 21413/02.
10. King v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 8 April 2003, no. 13881/02.
11. Marttinen v. Finland, Judgement of 21 April 2009, no. 19235/03.
12. O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 29 June 2007,nos.
15809/02 and 25624/02.
13. P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, Judgement of 25 September 2001, no.
44787/98.
14. Salduz v. Turkey, Judgement of 27 November 2008, no. 36391/02.
15. Saunders v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 17 December 1996, no. 19187/91.
16. Shannon v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 4 October 2005, no. 6563/03.
17. Tirado Ortiz and Lozano Martin v. Spain, Judgement of 15 June 1999, no.
43486/98.
18. Vasileva v. Denmark, Judgement of 25 September 2003, no. 52792/99.
19. Weh v. Austria, Judgement of 8 April 2004, no. 38544/97.
【歐洲法院】
1. Orkem v. Commission, Judgement of 18 October 1989, no. 374/87.
（四）網路資源
1. Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights (2018), Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Right.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf