Shilin gendarmerie caught deserters with pinholes and accused them. The gendarmerie said the judicial police handled the case in accordance with the law.

This newspaper received complaints from the public that personnel from the Shilin Military Police of the National Defense Military Police Headquarters installed pinholes in a community in Gongguan Township, Miaoli County. They suspected that they were being illegally monitored and have filed a lawsuit. The Gendarmerie Command responded by saying that the Shilin Gendarmerie affiliated to the ministry is under the command of the procuratorate in accordance with the law, performs the duties of the judicial police, and conducts case investigations in accordance with legal procedures. In addition, the concerned civilian woman filed a secret complaint of obstruction, and will cooperate with the judicial authorities in the subsequent investigation, and the Constitution Command will cooperate with the investigation.

According to reports, the military police were cooperating with the procuratorate on the case being investigated and carried out the search for deserters under the command of the prosecutor. It was not surveillance initiated by the military on its own. However, because the case was still in the investigation stage and subject to non-publicity restrictions, the military was unable to explain the cause of the case to the outside world. The suspect may also have learned that his whereabouts were being targeted due to media exposure.

The Ministry of Constitutional Command emphasized that the gendarmerie units affiliated to the ministry are all judicial police agencies. If any violations of laws or internal regulations are discovered, they will be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law (discipline) and the relevant personnel will be held accountable.

It is understood that after the police received the report from the residents and tracked and compared the vehicles, they quickly learned that the vehicle and the personnel were performing official duties. After learning about it, the gendarmerie team also took the initiative to explain the incident to the police and provide verification on the content of the evidence collected, clarifying that the person targeted by the camera had nothing to do with filing a complaint against the resident's family. Since the resident still decided to lodge a complaint, the military police could only respect it and cooperate with the prosecutor's investigation.

The reason why the gendarmerie can handle such cases is based on the provisions of Articles 229 to 231 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The gendarmerie captain is a judicial police officer. The gendarmerie captain and non-commissioned officers are judicial police officers who are responsible for investigating crimes under the command of prosecutors. The gendarmerie is a judicial police officer who is responsible for investigating crimes under the orders of prosecutors and judicial police officers. They are the same law enforcement subjects in criminal proceedings as the police and investigation bureau personnel.

After the Hong Zhongqiu case in 2013, Article 1 of the Military Trial Law was amended, and all crimes committed by active-duty military personnel under the Criminal Code of the Army, Navy and Air Force during non-wartime were returned to ordinary judicial organs for prosecution and trial. Therefore, the leading person in desertion cases is the prosecutor of the District Attorney's Office. The military police are only judicial police who carry out investigations for the prosecutor. No military personnel has the final say on whether to issue a wanted notice and what evidence collection methods to use.

As for why Taipei's Shilin Military Police appeared in Miaoli, it has to do with the characteristics of the fugitive case. The military base, place of residence and actual hiding place of the fugitive officers and soldiers are often divided into three places. Whichever gendarmerie team handles the case will be the handling unit. Under the command of the prosecutor for investigation, it is normal for the judicial police to cross-regional pursuit of clues to other counties and cities. It is customary to notify the local unit, but it is not legally required to be effective.

As for the crime of obstructing secrets filed by the resident under Article 315-1 of the Criminal Code, it is punishable by "unprovoked" recording of other people's "non-public" activities by videotaping or other means. Judicial practice believes that so-called non-public activities must have both subjective expectations of confidentiality and an environment that is objectively sufficient to ensure confidentiality. Whether the camera covers the interior of the house or only the front doorway will be the core of the facts in this case; and although the legislator used the "without reason" element to exclude legitimate reasons Practical opinions on evidence collection also clearly point out that even if the purpose of stealing is to investigate a crime, it is "not necessarily" justifiable. It still needs to be comprehensively judged based on the degree of criminal suspicion, the importance and urgency of the investigation, and the necessity between means and ends. How to identify the entire case depends on the prosecutor's review based on the actual image content.

It is pointed out that even if the procedures are legal, the military does still have areas that should be carefully reviewed. A plastic water pipe with a diameter of more than 10 centimeters and a length of about 2 meters was attached to an existing cable pipe with a tie. In ordinary residential communities, it is a foreign object that appears out of thin air. Neighbors can confirm that no one has installed it after asking for a while. Choosing to drive into the community between 2 and 3 in the morning is the easiest time to record it completely in today's day when surveillance cameras are installed in every house. With the addition of advance surveys and taking pictures of vehicles and house numbers with mobile phones, once residents access the images and compare them, it will be easy to trace back.

Pretending to search for evidence and being discovered by someone other than the target is a failed investigation in itself, and it also causes unnecessary panic among the general public. Especially for a family where only a mother, daughter and three young children live. If they find that a stranger has installed a camera on the exterior wall of their home, calling the police, accessing the images, and filing a complaint are all legitimate rights granted by the law. Although the military is unable to fully explain the situation due to the non-disclosure of the investigation, it still needs to implement strategic communication while ensuring a balance between fairness in military service, law enforcement, and military-civilian relations.