Q&A on the Newly Amended Regulations on Non-Disclosure of Investigation

What are the criteria for cases of public concern?

Article 8, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the new Act: "Where a case has a significant impact on national security or social order, involves major disasters, or constitutes another case of public concern, and there is a necessity to moderately make public explanations."

This issue was discussed during the amendment process of the new Act, but because it is difficult to define, it must be judged on a case-by-case basis. The National Police Agency has stipulated the determination criteria in Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the "Points to Note for Police Agencies Handling News on Criminal Cases Investigated":

1. Evidence investigation must be clear
   Consideration must be given to whether there is a flagrant offender, quasi-flagrant offender, or whether the criminal facts have been clearly verified. News shall not be released solely because a suspect has been identified, because of co-conspirator indices, or because the investigation of criminal facts is not yet clear.
2. The harmfulness must be relatively significant
   Assessment must be made based on factors such as whether the crime is committed continuously, in association (by a gang, group, or organization), with multiple victims, or whether the act has attracted public opinion concern after its occurrence or caused relatively significant harm to the physical, life, or property safety of the public or to social order.
3. Ordinary criminal cases generally do not qualify
   General criminal cases (such as simple crimes like theft, injury, property damage disputes, gambling, drunk driving endangering public safety, and drug use) are generally difficult to recognize as having a major impact on social order and should not meet the concept of this category of cases.

Upon discovering incorrect information reported by the media, should the jurisdiction unit proactively step forward to clarify or inform reporters?

Article 8, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 7 of the new Act: "Where the content of media verification, reporting, or online community dissemination does not match the facts, affecting the reputation, privacy, and other major rights and interests of the defendant, criminal suspect, victim, or other litigation participants, or affecting the investigation of the case, and it is deemed necessary to clarify."

Based on the principle of the presumption of innocence and privacy protection during the investigative stage of criminal cases, the clarification of untrue content requires substantial preconditions and necessity. Information related to a case cannot be made public or disclosed more broadly than permitted. Whether the investigating agency should proactively step forward to clarify upon discovering incorrect information reported by the media must be judged based on the requirements set forth in Article 8, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 7 of the Regulations. If there is no circumstance affecting the reputation, privacy, or other major rights and interests of the defendant, criminal suspect, victim, or other litigation participants, or affecting the investigation of the case, it still fails to meet the requirements for news release.

Who shall serve as the news spokesperson?

Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the new Act: "Investigative agencies and investigative auxiliary agencies shall designate a news spokesperson." Currently, police precincts all designate the deputy precinct chief to serve as the spokesperson. However, in practical operations, unless there are police discipline issues within the jurisdiction or major cases, deputy precinct chiefs rarely step forward to speak. Moreover, deputy precinct chiefs are busy with official duties and often do not understand the case facts as well as the head of the criminal investigation squad, the police station chief, or the deputy station chief. How can this be resolved?

Regarding news spokespersons for criminal cases in police agencies, at the police precinct (corps) level, in addition to the deputy precinct chief serving as the agency spokesperson, to meet practical operational needs, the "Points to Note for Police Agencies Handling News on Criminal Cases Investigated" stipulates that the head or deputy head of the criminal investigation squad, or the head or deputy head of the public relations unit may be designated. In urgent situations, the head or deputy head of the investigating unit, or the head of the relevant operational unit may be designated, making the regulations quite flexible. However, the content released by the spokesperson must still undergo review procedures. The purpose of the spokesperson mechanism is to exercise caution and restraint regarding the communication channel, rather than to facilitate providing external explanations or satisfying outside demands for information on the case.

Regarding street violence cases where the media arrives on-site to report, can the on-site leading cadre explain the case facts upon media inquiry?

When handling street violence cases, judgments should be made based on whether they have caused a major impact on social order or public concern to assess whether news can be released. In addition, the new Act stipulates that the release of news must be approved by the head of the agency or the agency spokesperson. When handling the scene of such cases, if media is present for reporting, the on-site leading cadre shall not independently decide to make public statements or determine the content of statements. However, briefly explaining the law enforcement stance of the police agency or measures to strengthen the maintenance of public order that do not involve the case facts should not be considered a violation of regulations.

What is the scope of restricted areas?

If reporters in the future are not reporting on a specific news story, can they still go to police units to drink tea and chat or borrow a place to draft articles?

1. In response to Article 10, Paragraph 5 of the new Act, the regulations for press interview restricted areas in police agencies are:
   1. Criminal scenes where cordons have been implemented.
   2. Office areas of criminal police duty organizations and spaces where interrogations, questioning, or waiting for questioning take place.
   3. Police branch stations, sub-stations, and various duty organizations where criminal cases are being investigated or interrogations are being conducted.

2. The aforementioned regulations on press interview restricted areas in police agencies involve situational controls for criminal scenes and police stations, whereas the office areas of criminal police duty organizations are subject to routine controls. However, this does not mean the entire unit; for socializing spaces within the unit that have dedicated partitions, separated circulation routes, or barriers, media friends may still engage in social activities within such spaces. In this regard, individual police agencies can adapt to local conditions and plan accordingly.

In drunk driving cases where the media arrives on-site to report, can reporters film the breathalyzer testing process, ask about the breathalyzer results, or ask for the surname?

Article 9, Paragraph 4 of the new Act: "While a case is under investigation, it is prohibited to bring media along to handle cases, or to inappropriately cause defendants, criminal suspects, or victims to be filmed or directly interviewed by the media."

Police personnel shall properly cordon off or restrict criminal scenes. Therefore, at the scene of a drunk driving case, if media (or unrelated persons) are found present and filming, appropriate controls should be implemented, or measures taken to prevent suspects from being directly filmed. Permitting the media to get close and film the breathalyzer testing process is a clear violation of the regulations. Furthermore, referring to the release requirements under Article 8 of the new Act, simple drunk driving cases can hardly pass the review of release requirements. Therefore, news shall not be released, nor shall case information be made public or disclosed. Consequently, breathalyzer results, suspect information, and the like shall not be provided.

What is meant by "inappropriately causing media filming"?

If in a public place outside the cordon, while the media is filming, police officers fail to stop them, can this be considered "inappropriately causing media filming"?

The term "inappropriately causing media filming" refers to police agencies failing to fulfill the preventive measures required by relevant regulations, such as failing to earnestly enforce regulations on interview restricted areas, allowing the media to directly film—or film via surveillance monitor screens—office premises or interrogation rooms where criminal cases are being investigated, or acting intentionally, such as deliberately arranging for suspects to walk the "red carpet" or causing criminal suspects to be filmed or directly interviewed by the media due to gross negligence. The behavior of media independently filming and reporting in public places outside the cordon (restricted areas) does not fall within the scope of responsibility of police officers.