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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS