On April 22, 2021, music teacher Chan Hui-ling (詹慧玲) was stopped and questioned in Taoyuan’s Jhongli District (中壢) by a police officer, surnamed Yeh (葉). When she refused to cooperate, she was thrown to the ground and arrested for obstructing an officer in carrying out their duties.
Chan filed a complaint against the officer, but the Taoyuan District Prosecutors’ Office declined to press charges. After Chan applied for a reconsideration, the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office ordered local authorities to conduct a second review. Yeh was found guilty in the first trial of coercion by a public official and was sentenced to four months in jail, in addition to offenses against personal freedom by a public official, for which he received a further six months.
The case highlights the major problem with spot checks by police.
Police conduct spot checks to maintain social order — not for criminal investigations. As such, spot checks do not involve arrest or search warrants, and are not subject to stringent oversight. Many years ago, the only legal basis for spot checks by police was Article 11 of the Police Duty Act (警察勤務條例), which demonstrates the dearth of attention given to spot checks. It was not until the passage of the 2003 Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法), following the grand justices’ issuance of Interpretation No. 535 in 2001, that clearer legal norms were laid for spot checks.
According to Interpretation No. 535, police cannot conduct arbitrary or random inspections regardless of time, location or individuals. There must be reasonable doubt that shows the person poses a risk to endangering public safety or order.
Furthermore, before carrying out a spot check, there must be reasonable grounds to believe the person constitutes a hazard or will cause a hazard. This principle is also laid out in the first item of Article 6 of the Police Power Exercise Act.
Based on Paragraph 1, Article 4 of the same act, when initiating a stop-and-check, police shall present their credentials showing their identity and state their intent. Furthermore, Paragraph 1, Article 3 of the same act states that the principle of proportionality must be observed.
If an officer were to conduct a spot check without following legal procedures — for example, basing their action on subjective feelings, such as they think the target is a stranger or acting strangely — did not inform the other person why they were targeted, or breached the principle of proportionality, etc., they have no legal basis on which to conduct the check. In such cases, based on Paragraph 2, Article 4 of the Police Power Exercise Act, people have the right to refuse to cooperate.
Since the crime of obstructing an officer in discharge of their duties as stated in Paragraph 1, Article 135 of the Criminal Code assumes that civil servants perform their duties in accordance with the law, resisting illegal checks is a legitimate self-defense, and it is not considered obstructing an officer in carrying out their duties. It is the police who might be breaking the law if they were to take a person into custody without proper authority, through coercion or after an illegal search.
Most people would feel intimidated or unsure of what the legal consequences would be if they refused to cooperate. They could take legal action after the incident, but by that time it would be difficult to collect evidence. It is rare for somebody to stand up for their rights in the manner like Chan did, leading to the prosecution of a police officer.
As the Police Power Exercise Act has been in force for nearly 20 years, aside from reviewing and amending legislation, police must strive to comply with due process and protect people’s rights when conducting random inspections.
Wu Ching-chin is a law professor at Aletheia University and director of the university’s Research Center for Criminal Law.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS