酒醉駕車可能同時涉及行政違序行為及刑事犯罪行為，而血液中酒精濃度更為判定行為責任之重要準據，現行警察職權行使法、道路交通管理處罰條例及刑事訴訟法就呼氣或抽血取得行為人酒精濃度數值固有相關規範，惟並未確切掌握其為干預基本權之性質，以致規範不完備而有違反正當法律程序之虞。本文第一章即先就問題之緣起、研究目的、研究方法及研究範圍作一全面性之概述。 　　　第二章探討酒醉駕車所涉及之行政責任及刑事責任。按道路交通管理處罰條例自民國57年立法以來，迄今已六度修正提高酒醉駕車之裁罰標準，88年4月間刑法增訂185條之3不能安全駕駛罪，將酒醉駕車入罪化；而授權警察得下命強制抽血檢測酒精濃度之規定則係於90年1月間增訂，而92年間警察職權行使法之修訂，使警察發動酒測得有較為明確之授權依據，然而實務運作上仍存有諸多爭議，並因酒駕可能僅為行政責任、亦可能同時涉及刑事責任，致使強制抽血檢測酒精濃度措施究屬警察的行政調查手段，抑或已屬犯罪偵查領域而應適用更為嚴謹的程序規範，即應加以釐清以杜合法性之爭議。 　　　第三章探討強制抽血檢測酒精濃度所涉及之基本權，就人身自由權、身體不受傷害權、隱私權及不自證己罪原則逐一探討。首先概述上開基本權之權利內涵，確認其是否屬我國憲法所保障之基本權，如為肯定，再探討強制抽血檢測酒精濃度是否侵害該基本權。而依本文之觀察，強制抽血酒測應已侵及人身自由權、身體完整不受侵犯權及隱私權。 　　　第四章採用比較法研究，探討強制採血以取得血液中酒精濃度數值作為刑事犯罪證據使用，在刑事訴訟法之體系定位為何，並比較92年1月刑事訴訟法就侵入體內取證之行為在修法前後之法規依據、相關學說爭議及實務運作情況。其次，基於鑑定之檢查身體規定係繼受自德國刑事訴訟法第81條a，因此本章中除著重於追本溯源，以德國立法例作為主要的外文文獻參考資料，透過對於德國法的立法解釋、學說見解及實務案例的分析，希望能對檢查身體制度在我國制度定位上有一定的幫助外，並輔以美國法上對於檢查身體的相關案例與見解，期能進一步釐清檢查身體制度的意義及定位。 　　　第五章探討現行檢查身體在我國刑事訴訟法的體系定位，以其乃為具有強制處分性質之措施，惟在現行法卻有定位不明之憾，形式上固符合法律保留原則，惟在實質合法性上則似不盡符合正當法律程序原則，未來修法上實應明確訂定該等強制處分發動的程序與實體要件、執行規範、事後審查與救濟規定，期能同時兼顧人權保障與實體真實之發現。 　　　第六章則綜合整理歸納各章論述重點，並認未來檢查身體在刑事訴訟法上有明確規範後，現行道路交通管理處罰條例授權警察得逕為下命移送醫療檢驗院所強制抽血之規定則亦有相應調整之必要性，期以程序正義保障實體之正義，落實法治國原則保障人民權益之價值理念。 / Driving while intoxicated (DWI) may involve in disordering administrative law or committing criminal crime, which mainly depends on the person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC). According to the Police Act, the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations and the Code of Criminal Procedure, we have relevant regulations for BAC measurement (a mass of alcohol per volume of blood) through breath alcohol testing or blood testing. These regulations, however, are fragmented and against due process because of violating the fundamental rights of the people. Therefore, I begin at overview of the origin of the studies, the purpose of studies, the methodology of studies and the range of studies in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, I discuss responsibility of DWI in administrative code and criminal code. According to the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations (which enacts in 1968), we have revised standard and raised the penalty on DWI. In April 1999, the Criminal Code revised and augmented Article 185-3- not safety driving crime. That is, criminalization of DWI. In January 2001, the police are authorized to implement BAC testing due to law augment. The revises of the Police Act grant the police to enforce BAC testing while there are disputes in practice. DWI maybe just against administrative liability or involve criminal liability at the same time. Thus, the enforcement of BAC testing belongs to either the methods of the police administrative investigation or the field of delinquency investigation. If it belongs to the latter, we should adapt due process more strictly so that we could prevent legality from disputes In Chapter 3, I discuss the enforcement of BAC testing in accordance with fundamental rights of the people, including personal freedom, defense of bodily harm, privacy right and Principle of privilege against self-incrimination. First of all, we should make sure whether the content of nature rights corresponds to Constitution or not. When it is approval, we will discuss whether the enforcement of BAC testing trespasses on nature rights. According to the article, the enforcement of BAC testing against personal freedom, defense of bodily harm and privacy right. 　　　 In Chapter 4, I use comparative studies in order to obtain a mandatory BAC value as criminal evidence in Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides, I compare the evidence obtained by body invasion before and after amending the Code of Criminal Procedure in January 2003, the disputes of relevant theories and the practical operation. Secondly, based on the identification of the physical examination provided by the German Code of Criminal Procedure Article 81 a, we not only use the German legislation as major reference but also analyze the legislative interpretation, insights and practical cases of German Law. We are eager to anchor our system of physical examination associated with relevant the US cases and insights so that we can further advance the significance of the physical examination. In Chapter 5, I discuss the present physical inspection in our Code of Criminal Procedure due to its compulsory measure. It is a pity that, however, the present criterion for physical inspection is invalid. Although it conforms to principle of legal reservation, it does not consist with due process of law on the real legitimacy. We should consider due process of compulsory measure as well as substantive requirements, execution regulations, retrospective review and remedy when we amend the law in the future. By doing so, we not only protect human rights but also discover the substantive reality. In Chapter 6, I summarize the keynotes of all chapters and consider clearly definition of physical examination in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, which empowers the police to transfer the suspects to the medical institutions for blood testing, should adjust accordingly. By doing so, we can protect the entity of justice through due process and implement the principle of constitutional state. That is, to secure the interest of human rights.