Taichung District Court Judge Chang Yuan-sen (張淵森) recently found in a court application by the Criminal Investigation Bureau for a search warrant that data from the Executive Yuan’s COVID-19 tracing system were used to track the suspects.
This contradicts the Central Epidemic Command Center’s (CECC) promise that the information would only be used in the context of disease prevention.
The CECC has repeatedly reassured the public that the 1922 text message service is only used for contact tracing to curb the spread of COVID-19.
Chang decided to be a whistle-blower and in an article published on June 20 revealed that the 1922 text message system had alegedly been abused.
The CECC later repeated that the information would only be sent to the telecommunications company, where it would be kept for only 28 days and used only for COVID-19-related investigations.
As the 1922 text message service includes information about the mobile phone owner, location, and time of entry and exit to a venue, which all involve personal privacy, the issue caused heated debate.
The CECC probably did not — either actively or passively — provide the police with the information, and police officers must do all they can to find suspects, including tracing their movements.
As the text message is useful in identifying suspects, why can the information from the 1922 text message communication records not be used to make arrests?
What is more, as long as police request information in accordance with the Communication Security and Surveillance Act (通訊保障及監察法) when investigating an offense, permission would have to be issued by a prosecutor or the court, so there is no contravention of the law.
The Taichung District Court stated that it respects Chang’s personal opinion.
What this article wants to ask is: If police obtain information in an incorrect manner, should the judge reconsider whether or not the information should be admissible as evidence?
Article 158-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) stipulates that the “admissibility of the evidence, obtained in violation of the procedure prescribed by the law by an official in execution of criminal procedure, shall be determined by balancing the protection of human rights and the preservation of public interests, unless otherwise provided by law.”
Also, according to Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 664 from 2004, if a piece of evidence, disregarding the circumstances, is considered inadmissible because it was unlawfully obtained, that would not be appropriate in terms of determining the truth.
Furthermore, if several pieces of evidence that are consistent with fact are excluded simply because of procedural flaws in how they were obtained — if, for example, the contravention of legal procedure is minor in a serious cases — not considering the evidence could result in the defendant being at large, then this would be contrary to public sentiment and difficult for society to accept, and it would be harmful to the conduct of a fair and just trial.
This shows that although the text message information obtained by police officers might be problematic, judges would not necessarily refuse to take it into account.
However, this is not an encouragement to law enforcement to handle cases unscrupulously, but a necessity for finding out the truth, and maintaining social security and order.
Yu Ying-fu is a lawyer.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS