警察機關「偵查不公開」原則與媒體「新聞自由」理念，分別聯繫著「無罪推定」之基本人權與人民「知的權利J'前者捍衛著未經法院審判定罪之犯罪嫌疑人名譽權、隱私權及其他合法權益;後者f率為監督政府施政之「第四權J'防止行政濫權之制度性功能。此兩種權利在實務上有著錯綜複雜且相互衝突之關條。本研究昌在探索「警察機關如何在不違背偵查不公開之前提下回應媒體新聞自由的要求?J及「媒體記者如何 突破偵查不公開之限制以保障人民知的權利?J透過10個情 境模擬之個案交叉分析模式，訪談媒體記者與警察刑案偵查隊長，透過雙方對立角度之剖析，以找尋雙方衝突之緩衝平衡點，在不違反偵查不公開之前提下滿足媒體記者新聞自由的主張。最後歸納之結論有四，分別為:1.教育員警何種行為會違反「偵查不公開J; 2.警察應瞭解媒體需求，於合理範圍內讓 媒體記者能交差;3.藉助相關科學器材與技巧的輔助; 4.訂定 出更有效之規範法律。

The principles of“secrecy of investigation" and the right t。“freedom of the press" are respectively the foundations of “presumptionof innocence." Theformer principle guards against most unreviewed sentences of suspects by the juridical system. The latter is so called the fourth power， and which attempts to strictly monitor governmental behaviors and in the meantime to prevent from abusing their authorities. In practice， these two principles are conflicting with one another， like the clash of tug of war， requiring a sensitive balance to both sides.
This study explores two questions:“Without violating the principle of ‘secrecyof investigation'， how do the police respond to the needs requested by the freedom of press and protect the right to know?" and “Howdo the media reporters break the limits of secrecy of investigation to safeguard the right to know and the freedom of press?" Six simulated situations， adapted and complied from real cases， are employed as the data collecting tools to elicit both selected journalists and investigation squad chiefs by in-depthinterviews. Though establishing from conflicting positions， comparisons were aimed to find out the similarities and maximum agreement between the squad chiefs and journalists. Four conclusions were reached: (1) the police should learn about which action would violate the principle of secrecy of investigation and what legal or administrative liability would ensue; (2) the police should understand the needs of the media and provide journalists with information within reasonable scope for media coverage; (3) the police should be assissted by new devices and related technologies to meet reporters' needs; and (4) the government should cooperate with the media to modify laws which can effectively regulate related issues.