在犯罪控制与人权保障之间
|
摘要
监听作为一种重要的侦查手段,在打击犯罪中发挥着重要的作用,但同时由于其秘密性、强制性的特点,它也容易侵害公民的基本权利,不利于保障人权,因此需要对其进行合理的规制。监听法制化无疑是保障监听合理运用的有效方法,一些主要的法治国家近年来都纷纷对监听进行了立法,以期在打击犯罪与人权保障之间取得平衡。我国对监听尚未立法,但监听一直作为一种秘密侦查手段在犯罪侦查中使用,监听在我国司法实践中的运用缺乏严格的法律规制。鉴于此种现状,监听制度在我国当前面临着这样几个问题,即监听是否应当法制化、如何法制化以及监听实践中出现的一些问题当如何解决等,在试图解答这样一些问题时,笔者也循着这一思路对监听制度展开研究。由于我国的监听立法尚为空白,因此对这些问题的回答无疑对我国监听制度的理论研究和监听实践的指导都有着十分重要的意义。
本篇论文分为六个部分对监听制度展开研究:第一部分概论主要是对本篇文章的一些基本问题进行界定和分析。在该部分中首先厘清监听的概念,监听可以在多种意义上使用,因此对其界定是本文展开研究的前提。广义上的监听指应用各种方式对人们用声音交流的言词信息进行截取的行为,它包括作为犯罪侦查手段的监听、一方当事人同意的监听和当事人的私下录音,本文在广义上使用监听概念。监听以监听对象为标准可以分为有线监听、无线监听和口头监听,这种分类只是诸多分类中是主要的一种划分方法。监听的性质需要辨析,监听是强制侦查措施还是任意侦查措施,是否是一种独立的侦查措施,能否归
Wiretap, as an essential method of investigation, plays an important role against criminals. It is advantageous to the control of crimes. However it easily infringes the human rights, reasonable controls should be rendered .legalization wiretap is an effective approach to the proper usage of wiretap. In the latest years, some countries expect to keep balance between the beating criminals and protecting the human rights. We haven't legislated on wiretapping, and we are keeping use it as a secret investigation method. According to this situation, the wiretapping system faces several problems, i.e. whether the wiretapping should be legislated, how to legislate and how to solve the problems arising from the practicing. While answering these questions, I start my research on it. This paper makes some assumptions that for we haven't legislated on wiretapping yet, so in any case, solving these questions has important significance to the theory studying of the wiretapping and directing the wiretapping system.Research on the wiretapping system has six aspects in this paper .The first aspect includes definition of and analyzing the elementary problems. To define the conception of the wiretapping is the initial research. In broad sense, wiretap is the action of intercepting the word information in all kinds of ways, it includes wiretapping as the method of criminal investigation, one of the parties agrees to be wiretapped and the client private record. Wiretap is classified into interception of
wire communication, interception of wireless communication and interception of oral communication. Of course this is one of the ways to classify the wiretapping. Wiretapping is compulsive measure or free measure, whatever difference among wiretap and others method, to solve these problems help to define the quality of the wiretapping. I consider the wiretapping is a mandatory method for investigation of criminals. With the developing of the science and technology, the technology of wiretapping is also developed quickly, to know it well is benefit to comprehend the action, quality and effect of wiretapping. The second, the wiretap is reasonable in practice and is allowable in jurisprudence, but at the same time, wiretap is dangerous and it embodies several situations, mostly wiretapping is easy to evolvement tool of the politic contention, threatens the elementary rights of citizens, breaks the normal order of the society and causes the puzzle of judiciary ethics. For these reasons, wiretapping need legalization and can not be used freely, whether we consider it help to beat criminals and protect the human rights, or the requirement of procedure legalization.The second part is about generation and development on wiretapping system. Through study of these contents we can know the history of the wiretapping. There are several backgrounds on the birth of the wiretapping system. First, the development of science and technology provides the possibility of the wiretap; The independence of the investigation unit promotes the using of wiretapping in the criminal investigation; the theory of privacy rights generation and developing provided the support for the wiretap system constructing; the wiretap widely using promoted the birth of the wiretapping system.-American's wiretapping system is the earliest birth and one of the most perfect systems in the world, so to study it helps to know the development of the wiretapping system of American as well as of England, German and Japanese. At the same time, we should study the relative provisions of the international law. At present time, there exist three modes of wiretap system, controlling crime mode, protecting human rights mode and balancing rights mode. Protecting human rights mode emphasizes to protect human rights between the crime controlling and human rights protection, the conditions of its usage are strict,
the scope is narrow and the supervision is stringent in the wiretap law. Controlling crime mode emphasizes to find out the truth of fact, investigation unit has more power to investigate the crime, and this type pays less attention to protection of human rights. Balancing rights mode, whether to use the wiretap or to confirm the qualification of evidence, abides by agility principle. We should protect the human rights while strengthening beating crime, and struggling to keep balance between the crime controlling and human rights protection. There exist three kinds of trends, namely wide legalization on the wiretap system, gradually enlarging the scope of the wiretap and differentiation of the wiretap system.The third part mainly studies the basic content of wiretap law. The basic principle includes all the principle used in the compulsive measures, such as the principle of legal procedure, judicial censorship, proportion and order in writing. The special principles of wiretap include felony principle, relevance principle, period principle, appropriate opening principle, protecting the privacy rights principle a. \:dicial rectification principle. There also exist exceptions ,for example ,emergency wiretap, an emergency situation exists that involves the following(l)immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person, (2)conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest, or(3)conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime. The basic procedures of wiretap include the conditions and objects of wiretap, exercise procedure of wiretap, supervision procedure and the responsibility of illegal wiretap. The convention wiretap is different from the wiretap on the crime of threatening the national security interest, Cthe-Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)) of United states prove this point, the conditions of wiretap application is less strict. There exist conflict between wiretap and the principle that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, the conflict also exists between wiretap and the rule of privilege, how to deal with it, we should reasonably treat it.To study the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence is in the fourth part. The illegal wiretap evidences are those evidences that are obtained through violating the
legal procedure, principle of wiretap or the essential conditions. There exists a big gap among the different countries on the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence. This paper emphasizes analysis of the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence of the United States, Germany and Japan as well as other countries. There are various situations in the practice, so there are some special situations needed to be studied, for example, wiretap accidental, beforehand wiretap, wiretap in other cases, wiretap in the house and pursuing the source of the voice etc .It has strong practice significance in defining the special situations legal or illegal and to solve the problem on the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence. Our country should provide the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence, and the illegal wiretap evidence obtained through serious unlawful method should be excluded.The mainly content is to study several special types of the wiretap in the fifth part, include internet surveillance, one of the parties agrees to be wiretapped and the client private record, these wiretaps are different from the ordinary wiretap. There are three differences between the internet surveillance and the conventional wiretap, (l)internet surveillance used in the practice has wider scope, deeper degree and infringes the privacy rights more deeply than the conventional wiretap;(2)internet needs more advanced technology and more units' cooperation,(3)controlling the internet surveillance infringement is more difficult. There are special requirements for its special character. When one of the parties agreed as a free measure in the crime investigation, investigate organizations can avoid the fussy procedures and the strict conditions, so it is convenient to investigate, but at the same time, easy to infringe the other party's right, for this kind of wiretap has not get the other party's allowance, this conflict inherent exists in this kind of wiretap itself. But the wiretap has the legal justice; the conflict can be solved by defining its legality or illegality. The private wiretap is the individuals' intercept to the other persons' communication; it includes the third party to wiretap the other two parties and one of the parties' private records. This kind of wiretap is reasonable measure to investigate crime in our country, for the ability of our investigation units is not enough.There are some suggests about wiretap lawmaking in the sixth part. The law
related to wiretap is very simple in our country; the wiretap is far less effectively constrained by law. There exist several problems : (l)there is no legal procedure concerning wiretap using; (2)there is no independent organization to censor wiretap exercises; (3) the prosecution unit has no right to wiretap; (4) the client has no way to get rectification; (5) the wiretap data can not act as a evidence to use at court. But the wiretap is necessary, and it should be legalization for three reasons, one is to meet the requirement of beating crime, the second is to protect the human rights and the last is the requirement of the investigation procedure. The concrete suggestions include the type of legislation, the scope of wiretap application, the essential conditions, and the procedure of wiretap, the utilization and handling of the wiretap data, the illegal wiretap rectification and the report system.
本篇论文分为六个部分对监听制度展开研究:第一部分概论主要是对本篇文章的一些基本问题进行界定和分析。在该部分中首先厘清监听的概念,监听可以在多种意义上使用,因此对其界定是本文展开研究的前提。广义上的监听指应用各种方式对人们用声音交流的言词信息进行截取的行为,它包括作为犯罪侦查手段的监听、一方当事人同意的监听和当事人的私下录音,本文在广义上使用监听概念。监听以监听对象为标准可以分为有线监听、无线监听和口头监听,这种分类只是诸多分类中是主要的一种划分方法。监听的性质需要辨析,监听是强制侦查措施还是任意侦查措施,是否是一种独立的侦查措施,能否归
Wiretap, as an essential method of investigation, plays an important role against criminals. It is advantageous to the control of crimes. However it easily infringes the human rights, reasonable controls should be rendered .legalization wiretap is an effective approach to the proper usage of wiretap. In the latest years, some countries expect to keep balance between the beating criminals and protecting the human rights. We haven't legislated on wiretapping, and we are keeping use it as a secret investigation method. According to this situation, the wiretapping system faces several problems, i.e. whether the wiretapping should be legislated, how to legislate and how to solve the problems arising from the practicing. While answering these questions, I start my research on it. This paper makes some assumptions that for we haven't legislated on wiretapping yet, so in any case, solving these questions has important significance to the theory studying of the wiretapping and directing the wiretapping system.Research on the wiretapping system has six aspects in this paper .The first aspect includes definition of and analyzing the elementary problems. To define the conception of the wiretapping is the initial research. In broad sense, wiretap is the action of intercepting the word information in all kinds of ways, it includes wiretapping as the method of criminal investigation, one of the parties agrees to be wiretapped and the client private record. Wiretap is classified into interception of
wire communication, interception of wireless communication and interception of oral communication. Of course this is one of the ways to classify the wiretapping. Wiretapping is compulsive measure or free measure, whatever difference among wiretap and others method, to solve these problems help to define the quality of the wiretapping. I consider the wiretapping is a mandatory method for investigation of criminals. With the developing of the science and technology, the technology of wiretapping is also developed quickly, to know it well is benefit to comprehend the action, quality and effect of wiretapping. The second, the wiretap is reasonable in practice and is allowable in jurisprudence, but at the same time, wiretap is dangerous and it embodies several situations, mostly wiretapping is easy to evolvement tool of the politic contention, threatens the elementary rights of citizens, breaks the normal order of the society and causes the puzzle of judiciary ethics. For these reasons, wiretapping need legalization and can not be used freely, whether we consider it help to beat criminals and protect the human rights, or the requirement of procedure legalization.The second part is about generation and development on wiretapping system. Through study of these contents we can know the history of the wiretapping. There are several backgrounds on the birth of the wiretapping system. First, the development of science and technology provides the possibility of the wiretap; The independence of the investigation unit promotes the using of wiretapping in the criminal investigation; the theory of privacy rights generation and developing provided the support for the wiretap system constructing; the wiretap widely using promoted the birth of the wiretapping system.-American's wiretapping system is the earliest birth and one of the most perfect systems in the world, so to study it helps to know the development of the wiretapping system of American as well as of England, German and Japanese. At the same time, we should study the relative provisions of the international law. At present time, there exist three modes of wiretap system, controlling crime mode, protecting human rights mode and balancing rights mode. Protecting human rights mode emphasizes to protect human rights between the crime controlling and human rights protection, the conditions of its usage are strict,
the scope is narrow and the supervision is stringent in the wiretap law. Controlling crime mode emphasizes to find out the truth of fact, investigation unit has more power to investigate the crime, and this type pays less attention to protection of human rights. Balancing rights mode, whether to use the wiretap or to confirm the qualification of evidence, abides by agility principle. We should protect the human rights while strengthening beating crime, and struggling to keep balance between the crime controlling and human rights protection. There exist three kinds of trends, namely wide legalization on the wiretap system, gradually enlarging the scope of the wiretap and differentiation of the wiretap system.The third part mainly studies the basic content of wiretap law. The basic principle includes all the principle used in the compulsive measures, such as the principle of legal procedure, judicial censorship, proportion and order in writing. The special principles of wiretap include felony principle, relevance principle, period principle, appropriate opening principle, protecting the privacy rights principle a. \:dicial rectification principle. There also exist exceptions ,for example ,emergency wiretap, an emergency situation exists that involves the following(l)immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person, (2)conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest, or(3)conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime. The basic procedures of wiretap include the conditions and objects of wiretap, exercise procedure of wiretap, supervision procedure and the responsibility of illegal wiretap. The convention wiretap is different from the wiretap on the crime of threatening the national security interest, Cthe-Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)) of United states prove this point, the conditions of wiretap application is less strict. There exist conflict between wiretap and the principle that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, the conflict also exists between wiretap and the rule of privilege, how to deal with it, we should reasonably treat it.To study the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence is in the fourth part. The illegal wiretap evidences are those evidences that are obtained through violating the
legal procedure, principle of wiretap or the essential conditions. There exists a big gap among the different countries on the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence. This paper emphasizes analysis of the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence of the United States, Germany and Japan as well as other countries. There are various situations in the practice, so there are some special situations needed to be studied, for example, wiretap accidental, beforehand wiretap, wiretap in other cases, wiretap in the house and pursuing the source of the voice etc .It has strong practice significance in defining the special situations legal or illegal and to solve the problem on the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence. Our country should provide the admissibility of illegal wiretap evidence, and the illegal wiretap evidence obtained through serious unlawful method should be excluded.The mainly content is to study several special types of the wiretap in the fifth part, include internet surveillance, one of the parties agrees to be wiretapped and the client private record, these wiretaps are different from the ordinary wiretap. There are three differences between the internet surveillance and the conventional wiretap, (l)internet surveillance used in the practice has wider scope, deeper degree and infringes the privacy rights more deeply than the conventional wiretap;(2)internet needs more advanced technology and more units' cooperation,(3)controlling the internet surveillance infringement is more difficult. There are special requirements for its special character. When one of the parties agreed as a free measure in the crime investigation, investigate organizations can avoid the fussy procedures and the strict conditions, so it is convenient to investigate, but at the same time, easy to infringe the other party's right, for this kind of wiretap has not get the other party's allowance, this conflict inherent exists in this kind of wiretap itself. But the wiretap has the legal justice; the conflict can be solved by defining its legality or illegality. The private wiretap is the individuals' intercept to the other persons' communication; it includes the third party to wiretap the other two parties and one of the parties' private records. This kind of wiretap is reasonable measure to investigate crime in our country, for the ability of our investigation units is not enough.There are some suggests about wiretap lawmaking in the sixth part. The law
related to wiretap is very simple in our country; the wiretap is far less effectively constrained by law. There exist several problems : (l)there is no legal procedure concerning wiretap using; (2)there is no independent organization to censor wiretap exercises; (3) the prosecution unit has no right to wiretap; (4) the client has no way to get rectification; (5) the wiretap data can not act as a evidence to use at court. But the wiretap is necessary, and it should be legalization for three reasons, one is to meet the requirement of beating crime, the second is to protect the human rights and the last is the requirement of the investigation procedure. The concrete suggestions include the type of legislation, the scope of wiretap application, the essential conditions, and the procedure of wiretap, the utilization and handling of the wiretap data, the illegal wiretap rectification and the report system.
引文
1、孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》,上册,张雁深译,商务印书馆1997年版。
2、[美]乔恩.R.华尔兹著:《刑事证据大全》,何家弘等译,中国人民公安大学出版社1993年版。
3、[美]路易斯.享金、阿尔伯特.J.罗森塔尔:《宪政与权利》,郑戈、赵晓力、强世功译,三联书店1996年版。
4、阿丽塔.L.艾伦、理查德.C.托克音顿著:《美国隐私法学说 判例与立法》,冯建妹等译,北京:中国民主法制出版社,2004年版。
5、[美]理查德,A,波斯纳:《证据法的经济分析》,徐昕、徐昀译,中国法制出版社2001年版。
6、澳门政府法律翻译办公室:《澳门刑法典澳门刑事诉讼法典》,法律出版社1997年版。
7、格雷.T.马克斯,《高技术与社会秘密实践》,中共党史出版社,1994年版。
8、麦高伟、杰弗里.威尔逊著:《英国刑事司法程序》,法律出版社2003年版。
9、[法]勒内.达维:《英国法与法国法》,重庆,西南政法学院法制史教研室,1984年中文第1版。
10、[德]约阿希姆.赫尔曼:《德国刑事诉讼法》,李昌珂译,中国政法大学出版社1995年版。
11、尼尔.巴雷特著:《数字化犯罪》,郝海洋译,辽宁教育出版社1998年版。
12、[法]卡斯东.斯特法尼:《法国刑事诉讼法精义》下册;中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
13、爱德华.A.卡瓦佐.加斐洛.莫林著:《赛博空间及其法律—网上生活的权利和义务》,王月端译,江西教育出版社1999年版。
14、[德]克劳斯.罗科信著:《刑事诉讼法》,吴丽琪译,法律出版社第2003年版。
15、[德]拉德布鲁赫著:《法学导论》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
16、[日]田宫裕:《刑事诉讼法》,有斐阁1992年版。
17、[日]土本武司:《刑事诉讼法要义》,有斐阁1991年版。
18、[日]田口守一著:《刑事诉讼法》,刘迪等译,法律出版社2000年版。
19、何赖杰等:《刑事诉讼法实例研习》,台湾学林文化事业有限公司2000年版。
20、法治斌著:《宪法专论》(一),国立政治大学法律系丛书.(23),74年5月。
21、张丽卿著:《刑事诉讼制度与刑事证据》,元照出版公司2000年版。
22、黄风译:《意大利刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社,1994年版。
23、沈宗灵、黄楠森主编:《西方人权学说》,四川人民出版社,1994年版。
24、卞建林等译:《加拿大刑事法典》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
25、谢佑平主编:《刑事诉讼国际准则研究》,法律出版社2002年版。
26、余叔通、谢朝华译:《法国刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社,1997年版。
27、杨宇冠、杨晓春编:《联合国刑事司法准则》,中国人民公安大学出版社第2003年版。
28、孙伟平著:《猫和耗子的新游戏——网络犯罪及其治理》,北京出版社1999年版。
29、罗斯扎克著:《信息崇拜—计算机神话和真正的思维艺术》,中国对外翻译出版公司1994年。
30 樊崇义主编:《证据法学》,法律出版社2003年版。
31、宋英辉译:《日本刑事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年第1版。
32、王以真主编:《外国刑事诉讼法学参考资料》,北京大学出版社1995年版。
33、徐久生、庄敬华译:《德国刑法典》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
34、杜景林、卢谌译:《德国民法典》中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
35、何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版。
36、卞建林译:《美国联邦刑事诉讼规则和证据规则》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版。
37、王进喜著:《刑事证人证言论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2002年版。
38、张丽卿著:《刑事诉讼制度与刑事证据》,元照出版公司2000年版。
39、比尔.盖茨著:《未来之路》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
40、谷辽海主编:《信息产业法律规范手册》,经济科学出版社2001年版。
41、姜伟主编:《民事诉讼法》,高等教育出版社2004年1月版。
42、陈瑞华:《刑事审判原理论》,北京大学出版社1997年版。
43、宋英辉:《刑事审判前程序研究》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
44、陈永生:《侦查程序原理论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
45、中国政法大学刑事法律研究中心组织编译:《英国刑事诉讼法选编》,中国政法大学出版社,2001年版。
46、龙宗智:《相对合理主义》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
47、孙长永:《侦查程序与人权》,中国方正出版社2000年版。
48、麦高伟、杰弗里.威尔逊著:《英国刑事司法程序》,法律出版社2003年版。
49、陈光中主编:《中华人民共和国刑事证据法专家拟制稿》,中国法制出版社2004年版。
50、毕玉谦等著:《中国证据法草案建议稿及论证》,法律出版社2003年版。
51、李义冠著:《美国刑事审判制度》,法律出版社1999年版。
52、宫本欣主编:《法学家茶座》第二辑,山东人民出版社,2003年版。
53、龙宗智著:《刑事庭审制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
54、龙宗智著:《理论反对实践》,法律出版社,2003年版。
55、孙长永著:《沉默权制度研究》,法律出版社,2001年版。
56、郎胜、王尚新主编:《<中华人民共和国国家安全法>释义》,法律出版社1993年版。
57、郎胜主编:《<中华人民共和国人民警察法>实用问题解析》,中国民主法制出版社1995年版。
58、最高人民检察院法律政策研究室编译:《所有人的正义—英国司法改革报告》,中国检察出版社2003年版。
59、任东来等著:《美国宪政历程》,中国法制出版社2004年版。
60、周路主编:《当代实证犯罪学新编》,人民法院出版社2004年版。
61、刁荣华主编:《比较刑事证据法各论》,汉林出版社 1984年1月出版。
62、丹宁勋爵:《法律的正当程序》,法律出版社1999年版。
63、陈祥印:《刑事侦查学》成都科技大学出版社1997年版。
64、陈光中、江伟主编:《诉讼法论丛》,法律出版社。
65、卢仁发主持:《监听制度之研究——台湾台北地方法院检察署八十二年度研究发展报告》,台湾台北地方法院检察署1993年印行。
1、英国《2000年调查权管理法》课题组:“对英国《2000年调查权管理法》的分 析研究报告”,载陈光中、江伟主编:《诉讼法论丛》第七卷。
2、陈永生:“诉讼平衡论”,《诉讼法学研究》第四卷,中国检察出版社2003年版、
3、[葡]M.C.安德拉德:“在新《澳门刑事诉讼法典》中作为获得证据之方式的电话监听”,载《澳门法律学刊》1997年,第1期。
4、陈永生:“国外的秘密监听立法”,《人民检察》2000年第七期。
5、彭勃:“论监听作为侦查手段的法律问题”《法商研究》2002年第6期。
6、江舜明:“监听在刑事程序法上之理论与实务”,《法学丛刊》168期。
7、江舜明:“监听界限与证据排除”,《法学丛刊》,第171期。
8、刘素林:“论政论自由”,《人权研究》第一卷,徐显明主编,山东人民出版社2001年版。
9、田正恒:“窃听之合法性及证据能力”,《法令月刊》第三十八卷第一期。
10、王琳:“论刑事诉讼中的监听”,《人民检察》2002年第九期。
11、张瑜凤:“刑事诉讼程序中有关监听之研究”,《法律评论》第63卷1-3期合刊。
12、杨迎泽,李麒:“电话监听证据研析”,《证据学论坛》(第一卷),中国检察出版社2000年版。
13、曾平杉:“论违法监听之法律效果”,国立中正大学/法律学研究所/91/硕士论文。
14、赵彦清:“受基本人权影响下的证据禁止理论——德国刑事诉讼法中的发展”,《欧洲法通讯》(第五辑),法律出版社2003年出版。
15、王兆鹏:《搜索扣押与刑事被告的宪法权利》,台大法学丛书(124),2000年5月。
16、陈志龙:“通讯窃听合法性之商榷”,《中兴法学》第14期。
17、龚向和等:“论司法公正的伦理底蕴”,《法学》第2003年第1期。
18、谢啸林:“私录视听资料的排除与采信”,《人民司法》1998年第5期。
19、渡边弘一:“刑事判例研究”,《警察学论集》四十六卷一号,1993年1月。
20、田正恒:“窃听之合法性及证据能力”,《法令月刊》第三十八卷第一期。
21、洪胜贤:“通讯监察之合宪性探讨”,国立中正大学犯罪防治研究所硕士论文。
22、曹昌棋:“监听法制化研究”,《警专学报》第六期,1993年。
23、林锡尧译:《限制书信、邮件及电信秘密之法律》,《法务通讯》第1507期,1991年1月。
24、吴微、郭志嫒:“日本《犯罪侦查通信监听法》评介”,《诉讼法学研究》第二卷樊崇义主编中国检察出版社2002年版。
25、郭瑜:“论电子商务的政府管理”,载于《行政法学研究》2000年第2期。
26、秦绪栋:“网络管制立法研究”,《网络法律评论》第4卷,法律出版社2004年。
27、李浩:“民事诉讼非法证据排除规则探析”(上),《法学评论》,2002年第6期。
28、蔡秋明:“美国刑事程序中之证据排除法则简介”,《律师杂志》第232期,88年。
29、范向阳:“秘密监听程序立法研究”,《河南公安高等专科学校学报》,2001年第六期。
30、《最高人民法院工作报告(第五届全国人大第五次会议)》;《最高人民法院工作报告(第七届全国人大第四次会议)》;《最高人民法工作报告(第十届全国人大第二次会议)》。
31、王梅英著:“证据能力与严格证明之研究”,《司法研究年报》第20辑,2000年11月。
32、王兆鹏:“经同意之搜索”,《法学丛刊》第176期。
33、赵彦清:“受基本人权影响下的证据禁止理论——德国刑事诉讼法中的发展”,《欧洲法通讯》(第五辑),法律出版社2003年出版。
34、邹明理:《关于我国<刑事诉讼法>中有关“侦查部分”立法修订的建议》,2001年全国公安理论研讨会论文。
35、谢佑平等著:“在惩罚犯罪与保障人权之间:关于监听的法律思考”,《南京师范大学学报》,2003年第2期。
36、赖玉山著:“证据排除法则之研究”,《台大法学论丛》第七卷第二期,67年6月。
37、陈运财:“监听性质及其法律规范——兼评通讯监察法草案之争议”,《东海大学法学研究》,第13期,1998年12月。
38、施晓慧:“监听风波,英国难堪”,《人民日报》,2004年03月02日第三版。
39、迟洪江:“窃听器引发保密恐慌手机通信到底安不安全”,《北京青年报》,2003年1O月8日。
40、甘超英:“德国联邦宪法法院的大监听判决”,《法制日报》,2004年6月17日。
41、于青、管克江:“《日本通信监听法》起争议”,《人民日报》2000年8月22日第7版。
42、陈永生:“诉讼平衡论”,《诉讼法学研究》第四卷,中国检察出版社2003年版。
43、KATZ v.UNITED STATES,389 U.S.347(1967).
44、On Lee V.U.S.,343 U.S.(1952).
45、EX PARTE JACKSON,96 U.S.727—(1877).
46、Silvenhorne Lumber Co.v.United States,251 U.S.385.(1920).
47、Nardone v United States,308U.S.338(1939).
48、Goldman v.U.S.316 U.S.129.
49、SiIverman v.U.S.365 U.S.505(1961).
50、Lopez V.U.S.373 U.S.427(1963).
51、Berger V New York,388 u.S.41(1967).
52、Dempsey,James X.“Communications Privacy in the Digital Age:ReVitalizing the Federal Wiretap Laws to Enhance Privacy.” Albany Lournal of Science& Technology.1997:VO.I.8,number 1,14.
53、Smith V Maryland 442 US 735(1979).
54、United States Telecom Association,et al,V FCC and USA,No99—1466.
55、Malolle v.Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan [1979]Chancery DiVision 344.
56、Huvig v.France,12EHRR 528(24April 1990).
57、Olmstead v.United States)277 U.S.438(1928).
58、Nardone v.U.S.302 U.S.379(1937).
59、U.S.v.Giordano,416 U.S.505,(1974).
60、U.S.v.Chavez,416 U.S.562(1974).
61、U.S.v.DoDovan,429U.S.413(1977).
62、Scott v.United States,436 U.S.128(1978).
63、Craig M.Bradley,The Exclusionary,Rule in German y, Harvard Law Review, March,1983.
64, United States v. Johnson, 539 F.2d 181(D.C. Cir 1976);
65, United States v. Williams 737 F.2d 594 (7~(th) Cir 1984).
66, Dalia v. United States 441U.S.238, 99 S. Ct. 1682 (1979).
67, USA Patriot Act of 2001.
68, Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S.293, (1966) .
69, U.S. v. White, 401 U.S. 745(1971).
70, United States v. Dortch, 199 F. 3d 193,201 (5~(th) Cir. 1999).
71, Burdeau v. Mcdowell 256 U.S. 465 (1921) .
2、[美]乔恩.R.华尔兹著:《刑事证据大全》,何家弘等译,中国人民公安大学出版社1993年版。
3、[美]路易斯.享金、阿尔伯特.J.罗森塔尔:《宪政与权利》,郑戈、赵晓力、强世功译,三联书店1996年版。
4、阿丽塔.L.艾伦、理查德.C.托克音顿著:《美国隐私法学说 判例与立法》,冯建妹等译,北京:中国民主法制出版社,2004年版。
5、[美]理查德,A,波斯纳:《证据法的经济分析》,徐昕、徐昀译,中国法制出版社2001年版。
6、澳门政府法律翻译办公室:《澳门刑法典澳门刑事诉讼法典》,法律出版社1997年版。
7、格雷.T.马克斯,《高技术与社会秘密实践》,中共党史出版社,1994年版。
8、麦高伟、杰弗里.威尔逊著:《英国刑事司法程序》,法律出版社2003年版。
9、[法]勒内.达维:《英国法与法国法》,重庆,西南政法学院法制史教研室,1984年中文第1版。
10、[德]约阿希姆.赫尔曼:《德国刑事诉讼法》,李昌珂译,中国政法大学出版社1995年版。
11、尼尔.巴雷特著:《数字化犯罪》,郝海洋译,辽宁教育出版社1998年版。
12、[法]卡斯东.斯特法尼:《法国刑事诉讼法精义》下册;中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
13、爱德华.A.卡瓦佐.加斐洛.莫林著:《赛博空间及其法律—网上生活的权利和义务》,王月端译,江西教育出版社1999年版。
14、[德]克劳斯.罗科信著:《刑事诉讼法》,吴丽琪译,法律出版社第2003年版。
15、[德]拉德布鲁赫著:《法学导论》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
16、[日]田宫裕:《刑事诉讼法》,有斐阁1992年版。
17、[日]土本武司:《刑事诉讼法要义》,有斐阁1991年版。
18、[日]田口守一著:《刑事诉讼法》,刘迪等译,法律出版社2000年版。
19、何赖杰等:《刑事诉讼法实例研习》,台湾学林文化事业有限公司2000年版。
20、法治斌著:《宪法专论》(一),国立政治大学法律系丛书.(23),74年5月。
21、张丽卿著:《刑事诉讼制度与刑事证据》,元照出版公司2000年版。
22、黄风译:《意大利刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社,1994年版。
23、沈宗灵、黄楠森主编:《西方人权学说》,四川人民出版社,1994年版。
24、卞建林等译:《加拿大刑事法典》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
25、谢佑平主编:《刑事诉讼国际准则研究》,法律出版社2002年版。
26、余叔通、谢朝华译:《法国刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社,1997年版。
27、杨宇冠、杨晓春编:《联合国刑事司法准则》,中国人民公安大学出版社第2003年版。
28、孙伟平著:《猫和耗子的新游戏——网络犯罪及其治理》,北京出版社1999年版。
29、罗斯扎克著:《信息崇拜—计算机神话和真正的思维艺术》,中国对外翻译出版公司1994年。
30 樊崇义主编:《证据法学》,法律出版社2003年版。
31、宋英辉译:《日本刑事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年第1版。
32、王以真主编:《外国刑事诉讼法学参考资料》,北京大学出版社1995年版。
33、徐久生、庄敬华译:《德国刑法典》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
34、杜景林、卢谌译:《德国民法典》中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
35、何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版。
36、卞建林译:《美国联邦刑事诉讼规则和证据规则》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版。
37、王进喜著:《刑事证人证言论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2002年版。
38、张丽卿著:《刑事诉讼制度与刑事证据》,元照出版公司2000年版。
39、比尔.盖茨著:《未来之路》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
40、谷辽海主编:《信息产业法律规范手册》,经济科学出版社2001年版。
41、姜伟主编:《民事诉讼法》,高等教育出版社2004年1月版。
42、陈瑞华:《刑事审判原理论》,北京大学出版社1997年版。
43、宋英辉:《刑事审判前程序研究》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
44、陈永生:《侦查程序原理论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
45、中国政法大学刑事法律研究中心组织编译:《英国刑事诉讼法选编》,中国政法大学出版社,2001年版。
46、龙宗智:《相对合理主义》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
47、孙长永:《侦查程序与人权》,中国方正出版社2000年版。
48、麦高伟、杰弗里.威尔逊著:《英国刑事司法程序》,法律出版社2003年版。
49、陈光中主编:《中华人民共和国刑事证据法专家拟制稿》,中国法制出版社2004年版。
50、毕玉谦等著:《中国证据法草案建议稿及论证》,法律出版社2003年版。
51、李义冠著:《美国刑事审判制度》,法律出版社1999年版。
52、宫本欣主编:《法学家茶座》第二辑,山东人民出版社,2003年版。
53、龙宗智著:《刑事庭审制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
54、龙宗智著:《理论反对实践》,法律出版社,2003年版。
55、孙长永著:《沉默权制度研究》,法律出版社,2001年版。
56、郎胜、王尚新主编:《<中华人民共和国国家安全法>释义》,法律出版社1993年版。
57、郎胜主编:《<中华人民共和国人民警察法>实用问题解析》,中国民主法制出版社1995年版。
58、最高人民检察院法律政策研究室编译:《所有人的正义—英国司法改革报告》,中国检察出版社2003年版。
59、任东来等著:《美国宪政历程》,中国法制出版社2004年版。
60、周路主编:《当代实证犯罪学新编》,人民法院出版社2004年版。
61、刁荣华主编:《比较刑事证据法各论》,汉林出版社 1984年1月出版。
62、丹宁勋爵:《法律的正当程序》,法律出版社1999年版。
63、陈祥印:《刑事侦查学》成都科技大学出版社1997年版。
64、陈光中、江伟主编:《诉讼法论丛》,法律出版社。
65、卢仁发主持:《监听制度之研究——台湾台北地方法院检察署八十二年度研究发展报告》,台湾台北地方法院检察署1993年印行。
1、英国《2000年调查权管理法》课题组:“对英国《2000年调查权管理法》的分 析研究报告”,载陈光中、江伟主编:《诉讼法论丛》第七卷。
2、陈永生:“诉讼平衡论”,《诉讼法学研究》第四卷,中国检察出版社2003年版、
3、[葡]M.C.安德拉德:“在新《澳门刑事诉讼法典》中作为获得证据之方式的电话监听”,载《澳门法律学刊》1997年,第1期。
4、陈永生:“国外的秘密监听立法”,《人民检察》2000年第七期。
5、彭勃:“论监听作为侦查手段的法律问题”《法商研究》2002年第6期。
6、江舜明:“监听在刑事程序法上之理论与实务”,《法学丛刊》168期。
7、江舜明:“监听界限与证据排除”,《法学丛刊》,第171期。
8、刘素林:“论政论自由”,《人权研究》第一卷,徐显明主编,山东人民出版社2001年版。
9、田正恒:“窃听之合法性及证据能力”,《法令月刊》第三十八卷第一期。
10、王琳:“论刑事诉讼中的监听”,《人民检察》2002年第九期。
11、张瑜凤:“刑事诉讼程序中有关监听之研究”,《法律评论》第63卷1-3期合刊。
12、杨迎泽,李麒:“电话监听证据研析”,《证据学论坛》(第一卷),中国检察出版社2000年版。
13、曾平杉:“论违法监听之法律效果”,国立中正大学/法律学研究所/91/硕士论文。
14、赵彦清:“受基本人权影响下的证据禁止理论——德国刑事诉讼法中的发展”,《欧洲法通讯》(第五辑),法律出版社2003年出版。
15、王兆鹏:《搜索扣押与刑事被告的宪法权利》,台大法学丛书(124),2000年5月。
16、陈志龙:“通讯窃听合法性之商榷”,《中兴法学》第14期。
17、龚向和等:“论司法公正的伦理底蕴”,《法学》第2003年第1期。
18、谢啸林:“私录视听资料的排除与采信”,《人民司法》1998年第5期。
19、渡边弘一:“刑事判例研究”,《警察学论集》四十六卷一号,1993年1月。
20、田正恒:“窃听之合法性及证据能力”,《法令月刊》第三十八卷第一期。
21、洪胜贤:“通讯监察之合宪性探讨”,国立中正大学犯罪防治研究所硕士论文。
22、曹昌棋:“监听法制化研究”,《警专学报》第六期,1993年。
23、林锡尧译:《限制书信、邮件及电信秘密之法律》,《法务通讯》第1507期,1991年1月。
24、吴微、郭志嫒:“日本《犯罪侦查通信监听法》评介”,《诉讼法学研究》第二卷樊崇义主编中国检察出版社2002年版。
25、郭瑜:“论电子商务的政府管理”,载于《行政法学研究》2000年第2期。
26、秦绪栋:“网络管制立法研究”,《网络法律评论》第4卷,法律出版社2004年。
27、李浩:“民事诉讼非法证据排除规则探析”(上),《法学评论》,2002年第6期。
28、蔡秋明:“美国刑事程序中之证据排除法则简介”,《律师杂志》第232期,88年。
29、范向阳:“秘密监听程序立法研究”,《河南公安高等专科学校学报》,2001年第六期。
30、《最高人民法院工作报告(第五届全国人大第五次会议)》;《最高人民法院工作报告(第七届全国人大第四次会议)》;《最高人民法工作报告(第十届全国人大第二次会议)》。
31、王梅英著:“证据能力与严格证明之研究”,《司法研究年报》第20辑,2000年11月。
32、王兆鹏:“经同意之搜索”,《法学丛刊》第176期。
33、赵彦清:“受基本人权影响下的证据禁止理论——德国刑事诉讼法中的发展”,《欧洲法通讯》(第五辑),法律出版社2003年出版。
34、邹明理:《关于我国<刑事诉讼法>中有关“侦查部分”立法修订的建议》,2001年全国公安理论研讨会论文。
35、谢佑平等著:“在惩罚犯罪与保障人权之间:关于监听的法律思考”,《南京师范大学学报》,2003年第2期。
36、赖玉山著:“证据排除法则之研究”,《台大法学论丛》第七卷第二期,67年6月。
37、陈运财:“监听性质及其法律规范——兼评通讯监察法草案之争议”,《东海大学法学研究》,第13期,1998年12月。
38、施晓慧:“监听风波,英国难堪”,《人民日报》,2004年03月02日第三版。
39、迟洪江:“窃听器引发保密恐慌手机通信到底安不安全”,《北京青年报》,2003年1O月8日。
40、甘超英:“德国联邦宪法法院的大监听判决”,《法制日报》,2004年6月17日。
41、于青、管克江:“《日本通信监听法》起争议”,《人民日报》2000年8月22日第7版。
42、陈永生:“诉讼平衡论”,《诉讼法学研究》第四卷,中国检察出版社2003年版。
43、KATZ v.UNITED STATES,389 U.S.347(1967).
44、On Lee V.U.S.,343 U.S.(1952).
45、EX PARTE JACKSON,96 U.S.727—(1877).
46、Silvenhorne Lumber Co.v.United States,251 U.S.385.(1920).
47、Nardone v United States,308U.S.338(1939).
48、Goldman v.U.S.316 U.S.129.
49、SiIverman v.U.S.365 U.S.505(1961).
50、Lopez V.U.S.373 U.S.427(1963).
51、Berger V New York,388 u.S.41(1967).
52、Dempsey,James X.“Communications Privacy in the Digital Age:ReVitalizing the Federal Wiretap Laws to Enhance Privacy.” Albany Lournal of Science& Technology.1997:VO.I.8,number 1,14.
53、Smith V Maryland 442 US 735(1979).
54、United States Telecom Association,et al,V FCC and USA,No99—1466.
55、Malolle v.Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan [1979]Chancery DiVision 344.
56、Huvig v.France,12EHRR 528(24April 1990).
57、Olmstead v.United States)277 U.S.438(1928).
58、Nardone v.U.S.302 U.S.379(1937).
59、U.S.v.Giordano,416 U.S.505,(1974).
60、U.S.v.Chavez,416 U.S.562(1974).
61、U.S.v.DoDovan,429U.S.413(1977).
62、Scott v.United States,436 U.S.128(1978).
63、Craig M.Bradley,The Exclusionary,Rule in German y, Harvard Law Review, March,1983.
64, United States v. Johnson, 539 F.2d 181(D.C. Cir 1976);
65, United States v. Williams 737 F.2d 594 (7~(th) Cir 1984).
66, Dalia v. United States 441U.S.238, 99 S. Ct. 1682 (1979).
67, USA Patriot Act of 2001.
68, Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S.293, (1966) .
69, U.S. v. White, 401 U.S. 745(1971).
70, United States v. Dortch, 199 F. 3d 193,201 (5~(th) Cir. 1999).
71, Burdeau v. Mcdowell 256 U.S. 465 (1921) .