불심검문에 불응한 피검문자에 대한 경찰관의 유형력행사와 한계
The Limitation of Policing related to Police Stop & Questioning
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
in various form of policing, it has been pointed that police stop & questioning has critical problems, because although there is a effective aspect related to crime prevention or investigation in police stop, but to the citizens, as they would be felt or treated as latent criminals by policeman, so police stop & questioning has made displeasure or dissatisfaction, still more no-cooperation and hostility against law enforcement. there are three major legal issues in police stop & questioning.; first, how can we distinguish short stop or briefly detain with arrest? second, during police stop, does the detainee have to answer to question by policeman about identification information, and the other information, for example, explanation of person’s action, address, destination, or introducing written identification like driver license, etc. and third. can the policeman do inspection to belongings of detainee, separately search & seizure of criminal procedure. In United States caselaw, namely Terry top, when the detainee was not free to leave from police stop situation, although police stop & question with the condition of reasonable suspicion by policeman is needed as routine policing for efficient crime prevention, it was arrest, not police stop, so illegal if without warrants or probable cause(free to leave test). and it is possible to inspect detainee or his belongings during lawful police stop, but only weapons can be inspected for the sake of safety of policeman or public by means of frisk(stop and frisk). and in relation with the right against self-incrimination, detainee has no obligation to answer the question except merely name as identification information(the Hiibel case law). but it has been insisted strongly in korea with reference of conservative Japanese caselaw and police practice that policeman can restraint detainee to leave during police stop, by physical contact or authority of policeman, because these means are persuasive methods, not coercion or arrest, custody, especially by police and law enforcement practice sides. in this study, the issues of police stop & questioning that are mentioned above will be revisited, expecially with the lower court case related to distinguish lawful short stop with unlawful arrest.
Abstract
in various form of policing, it has been pointed that police stop & questioning has critical problems, because although there is a effective aspect related to crime prevention or investigation in police stop, but to the citizens, as they would be felt or treated as latent criminals by policeman, so police stop & questioning has made displeasure or dissatisfaction, still more no-cooperation and hostility against law enforcement. there are three major legal issues in police stop & questioning.; first, how can we distinguish short stop or briefly detain with arrest? second, during police stop, does the detainee have to answer to question by policeman about identification information, and the other information, for example, explanation of person’s action, address, destination, or introducing written identification like driver license, etc. and third. can the policeman do inspection to belongings of detainee, separately search & seizure of criminal procedure. In United States caselaw, namely Terry top, when the detainee was not free to leave from police stop situation, although police stop & question with the condition of reasonable suspicion by policeman is needed as routine policing for efficient crime prevention, it was arrest, not police stop, so illegal if without warrants or probable cause(free to leave test). and it is possible to inspect detainee or his belongings during lawful police stop, but only weapons can be inspected for the sake of safety of policeman or public by means of frisk(stop and frisk). and in relation with the right against self-incrimination, detainee has no obligation to answer the question except merely name as identification information(the Hiibel case law). but it has been insisted strongly in korea with reference of conservative Japanese caselaw and police practice that policeman can restraint detainee to leave during police stop, by physical contact or authority of policeman, because these means are persuasive methods, not coercion or arrest, custody, especially by police and law enforcement practice sides. in this study, the issues of police stop & questioning that are mentioned above will be revisited, expecially with the lower court case related to distinguish lawful short stop with unlawful arrest.
참고문헌 (22)
- 배종대, "형사소송법 제7판" (2006), 홍문사
- 신동운, "형사소송법 제3판" (2005), 법문사
- 신양균, "형사소송법 제2판" (2004), 법문사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법" (2010), 박영사
- 金 亨 埈, "不審檢問의 許容範圍", 중앙법학, 6(4), pp.139~155 (2004), 중앙법학회
- 황창근, "불심검문에 관한 고찰", 연세법학연구, 6(1) (1999)
- "경찰통계연보", pp.156~157 (2009)
- 光藤景皎, "述 刑事訴訟法 上(第2版)" (2000), 成文堂
- 団藤重光, "刑事訴訟法綱要" (1943), 弘文堂
- 大野正博, "現代型搜査とその規制" (2001), 成文堂
- 小野淸一郞, "刑事訴訟法講義 全訂三版" (1933), 有斐閣
- 田宮裕, "刑事訴訟法 新版" (2001), 有斐閣
- 井上正仁, "搜査手段としての通信․會話の傍受" (1997), 有斐閣
- 佐々木史朗, "警察關係基本判例解說100", 別冊 判例タイムズ, (9) (1985)
- 平野龍一, "刑事訴訟法" (1958), 有斐閣
- 大塚尙, "Broken Window Theory", 警察學論集, 54(4) (2001), 警察大學校
- 白取祐司, "司法警察と行政警察", 法律時報, 69(9) (1997)
- 山本晶樹, "行政警察作用と司法警察作用", 法学論叢, 14(1)통권 : 25 (2001), 中央学院大学
- 上田信太郞, "職務質問のための實力の行使, 別冊 ジュリスト 刑事訴訟法判例百選 (第8版)" (2005)
- 田宮裕, "變容を逐げる搜査とその規制", 法曹時報, 49(11) (1997)
- 村瀨均, "將來發生する犯罪事實についての令狀發付の可否, 增補令狀基本問題 (上)" (1997), 一粒社
- Richard Sobel, "Trouble With Hiibel : How The Court Inverted The Relationship Between Citizens And The State", South Texas Law Review, 48 (2007)
