本文旨在探討警察法上「警察危害防止措施之行使對象」的相關法律問題。原則上，警察機關僅能對警察法上的責任人採取危害防止措施。因此，警察機關對人民採取基本權干預措施，乃是以任作為其正當性基礎。警察法上的責任包括「行為責任」與「狀態責任」兩大類型，在檢視因果歷程並判斷是否成立警察法上的責任時，應以直接肇因理論作為歸責之標準。除非法律有特別規定，否則警察法上的責任並無時間上之限制，換言之，警察機關對責任人採取危害防止措施並無消滅時效制度之適用。警察法上的抽象責任與具體義務，均須有公法法規明文規定，始得移轉給繼受人。當存在複數責任人，而警察機關要選擇危害防止措施的行使對象時，應以危害防止之有效性作為裁量之指導原則。唯有在符合警察緊急狀態之嚴格成立要件時，警察機關始得例外對非責任人採取危害防止措施。在「前危害階段」實施之警察措施，其對於傳統警察法帶來之衝擊，則值得予以關注。

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the legal issues of the addressee of preventive police measures. As a matter of principle, the police authority is only allowed to address its preventive measures to the responsible person. On this account the responsibility in police law
might be thought of as the basis for the legitimacy of the police
intervention in fundamental rights. Two types of the responsibility in
police law can be distinguished: the responsibility for dangerous behavior and the responsibility for dangerous condition of the property.
Compared with the equivalence theory and the adequate causation theory, the direct causation theory is more applicable for the attribution.
It is noteworthy that there is no limitation of the responsibility in police law. It should be also noted that a succession of the
responsibility in our police law has no legal basis. If there are a lot of responsible persons, the police authority should follow the principle of the effectiveness when choosing the addressee of measures. As soon as a
police emergency exists, the police authority is exceptionally allowed to address its preventive measures to the person who takes no responsibility for the danger. It may be of interest for future research that the police measures in the run-up to the danger raise many new questions of the police law.