Chatting with Rainie Yang About the Ambiguity of Police Stop-and-Searches

Ambiguity leaves people suffering through grievances, mostly because stop-and-searches often fail to turn up evidence. Celebrity Rainie Yang recently raised a question about stop-and-searches, sparking lively discussions among netizens. The ambiguity of stop-and-searches primarily stems from the four words: "reasonable suspicion." This is a subjective feeling that often cannot be reduced to evidence, nor can we force everyone to have the same perception. The police believe there is reasonable suspicion and thus stop you, demanding that you present identification. You believe there is no reasonable suspicion, yet you obediently hand over your ID anyway, feeling somewhat aggrieved as though you are being treated like a suspect. When certain cases make it into the media, some people criticize the abuse of law enforcement authority, while police officers feel they are simply doing their duty, also feeling aggrieved.

In fact, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 535 by the Grand Justices, along with the subsequently amended Police Powers Act, have established relatively clear "rules of the game" for such ambiguous situations. In principle, when the police believe there is "reasonable suspicion," they may naturally verify an individual's identity. Cooperating with the police is what most people do; after all, having broken no laws and lacking the courage or necessity to resist, you let them check and leave, and the matter ends there.

However, the law does indeed grant us the right to refuse, and citizens may state their reasons on the spot and lodge an objection—meaning they disagree with the police's "reasonable suspicion." At this point, the police have two choices: either accept our objection, bringing the matter to a close, or reject the objection, in which case they must provide us with a written record of refusal. Simultaneously, they may further take us back to the police station for continued questioning, for a maximum limit of 3 hours.

Enhancing Legal Literacy for Police and Citizens

These are essentially the legal rules for stop-and-searches: "As long as they can state grounds for reasonable suspicion, the police have the authority to initiate it. Citizens may question whether the police's initiation is unreasonable; if the police accept this, it ends. If they do not accept it, they provide a written record, return to the police station, for a maximum of 3 hours." The law has already balanced the interests of both parties and drawn a line. Law enforcement should adhere to this standard, eliminating the need for excessive doubt or resentment.

We ought to understand that most people fear trouble, do not fear the police, waive their rights, and cooperate to get it over with. Yet, some people are not criminals, yet strongly wish not to be subjected to stop-and-searches. They might wish to retain their privacy, or they might have had unpleasant past interactions with the police; everyone's life experiences vary greatly. Even more so in the past, students participating in street protests simply did not want their personal data recorded by the police, fearing family opposition or worry.

We can certainly continue to debate: Does wearing slippers count? Does flickering one's gaze count? Does wearing a face mask count? But "reasonable suspicion" carries ambiguous room for interpretation, and we should understand and accept that differing judgments among individuals are inevitable. What we should expect even more is that when we are stopped, we hear the law enforcement officer state the legal grounds in a gentle yet firm tone: "Due to 'such and such' circumstances, we have reasonable suspicion that you may commit an offense; please cooperate with this inspection." Then, weighing our own circumstances, we decide whether to proceed or refuse. Only then can police and citizens jointly write an ending rich in rule-of-law literacy.