「檢肅流氓條例」中詳細規範了流氓之定義、提報過程與相關懲治措施。本法中的「流氓提報措施」乃是過去刑事警察有效抑制地方幫派與維持社會秩序之行政手段。然而，本法於1985年施行以來，三度被司法院大法官以大法官解釋第384號、523號及636號宣告部份條文違憲。該閥害人權至深的立法也由立法院於2009年宣告廢止。 「檢肅流氓條例」中以「白吃白喝之人」或「欺壓善良鄉里之人」等不確定法律概念定義「流氓」與「流氓行為」的作法過於模糊，有違法律明確性原則。再者，本法中未經縝密行政審查程序即可提報流氓嫌疑人的提報措施、流程與流氓審議委員會之運作也被認為過於匆促、粗糙。流氓或流氓嫌疑人在憲法上的人身自由權在本法中並未受到重視。 本文嘗試以憲法變遷之觀點，檢驗臺灣憲法法院在本案中發揮的功能與影響層面。本文主張，司法院大法官於此案中，不僅積極扮演維護流氓人權的守護者角色，更在行政權因為錯失過去維護社會秩序的利器而面臨如何有效繼續維護社會安全的壓力時，發揮傾聽與協調意見的功能。

ABSTRACT The reporting of liumang, or hooligans, was an administrative measure implemented by the criminal investigation police to crack down on gangs and maintain social order in Taiwan. The Act for Eliminating Liumang provided the definition of liumang, the process of reporting and punishment involved reformatory training. The Act was in effect for almost twenty-five years starting in 1985, and was abolished in 2009 due to its infringement of human rights. The Act was challenged three times by Taiwan’s Constitutional Court, and parts of it were declared unconstitutional in Judicial Yuan Interpretations No. 384, No. 523 and No. 636. As defined in the Act, “liumang” and “liumang behavior” are too vague to be understood as having a accurate meaning. Also, the process of liumang reporting and the use of a deliberation committee were overly preemptory. It is important to follow due process when reporting or processing suspect for liumang behavior as well as to protect the suspect’s fundamental right of physical freedom. This note investigates the function and impact of Taiwan’s Constitutional Court through a close examination of the liumang interpretations. It is found that the Court played not only the role of active listener while facing the administrative bodies in charge of reporting work, but also functioned as a coordinator in the face of issue referring to the social order maintenance after the act’s abolition.