Xu Chenzhou, Director of the Clerk Office of the Constitutional Court, explained the 111-year Constitutional Judgment No. 16.

(Photo by reporter Wu Zhengfeng)

[Reporter Wu Zhengfeng/Taipei Report] A narcotics patient refused to take a urine test, and the police cited Article 205-2 of the Criminal Procedure Law for compulsory intubation and catheterization.

The New Taipei District Court questioned that the police made such a disciplinary action without a warrant from a prosecutor or a judge, and it would be unconstitutional. .

The Constitutional Court pointed out that in accordance with Article 205-2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, procuratorial officers or judicial police force a suspect to conduct a urine test, which is inconsistent with the principle of due process of law and violates Article 22 of the Constitution, which protects the right to information privacy and protection from physical and mental harm. The right of the body shall expire at the latest 2 years from the date of the announcement of this judgment, and it shall lose its validity.

However, before the announcement of this judgment, cases that have already taken urine in accordance with this regulation but have not yet been concluded, shall still be handled in accordance with the existing regulations.

Please read on...

The Constitutional Court has ordered that the relevant agencies should revise the law within two years from the announcement of this judgment, in accordance with the intent of the judgment, and before the revision of the law, if the police conduct urine collection in a non-invasive way, they should report to the prosecutor to issue an appraisal permit; when the situation is urgent, the police According to Article 205-2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, urine can be collected in a non-invasive way, and the prosecutor's permission shall be reported to the prosecutor within 24 hours of the urine collection; , within 10 days of collecting urine, apply to the court for revocation.

A drug addict in New Taipei was reported by his wife for drug use. The police went to search, took out a drug inhaler, arrested him according to the current offender, and asked for a urine test.

The man refused to take a urine test, and the police asked the prosecutor whether to force urine collection. The prosecutor replied, "If the suspect has a criminal record for drugs or is under drug control, he may be forced to collect urine... The defendant may also collect urine by himself." License.

The man was escorted to the hospital and tied to a hospital bed. The doctor inserted a urinary catheter into the urethra for catheterization. The police sent the collected urine for testing and found a positive result for amphetamines. The prosecutor filed a public prosecution and applied for a summary sentence. The summary court sentenced him to five months in prison.

The man appealed, and the second instance of the New North District Court held that forced catheterization was a highly offensive punishment, but the police could do it without the permission of the prosecutor or the judge. .

After the trial by the Constitutional Court, an announcement was made on the 14th and the judgment was announced at 3 pm on the same day.

Article 205-2 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that in order to collect criminal evidence, the police may directly take fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, photographs, height measurements, and even hair, saliva, urine, tone of voice or breath on suspects as criminal evidence.

Some police officers interpret the term "urine collection" in the law as including "mandatory catheterization." When encountering a drug suspect who is unwilling to cooperate, they will send him to the hospital and directly intubate the catheter for a urine test.

The drug case in the Xinbei District Court was caused by the police's "invasive" forced urine collection without a warrant.

☆One less drug means more health, Free Times reminds you to stay away from drugs☆