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
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
A Reuters report published this week highlighted the struggles of migrant mothers in Taiwan through the story of Marian Duhapa, a Filipina forced to leave her infant behind to work in Taiwan and support her family. After becoming pregnant in Taiwan last year, Duhapa lost her job and lived in a shelter before giving birth and taking her daughter back to the Philippines. She then returned to Taiwan for a second time on her own to find work. Duhapa’s sacrifice is one of countless examples among the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who sustain many of Taiwan’s households and factories,
Taiwan Retrocession Day is observed on Oct. 25 every year. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government removed it from the list of annual holidays immediately following the first successful transition of power in 2000, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-led opposition reinstated it this year. For ideological reasons, it has been something of a political football in the democratic era. This year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) designated yesterday as “Commemoration Day of Taiwan’s Restoration,” turning the event into a conceptual staging post for its “restoration” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Mainland Affairs Council on Friday criticized
RSS