撤销“叼牙线棒开车处罚”传递出权力谦抑的清晰信号

Core Points - The case of Mr. Qian highlights the principle of "in case of doubt, favor the individual," emphasizing the need for public authority to exercise restraint when evidence is insufficient [1][2] - The initial enforcement error stemmed from equating the external manifestation of an action (holding a dental floss stick) with its actual danger, which is legally neutral unless proven otherwise [2] - The principle has evolved from criminal justice to encompass administrative enforcement, requiring public authorities to bear a heavier burden of proof when conflicts arise between public power and individual rights [2][3] Group 1 - The administrative department acknowledged that Mr. Qian's behavior did not materially affect his driving operation, leading to the withdrawal of the initial penalty [1][2] - The principle of "in case of doubt, favor the individual" serves as a crucial check against the arbitrary expansion of public power and protects citizens' rights from undue infringement [2][3] Group 2 - The adherence to this principle is essential for building a rule-of-law government, necessitating a shift from a simplistic "management mindset" to a more substantive "governance mindset" in administrative enforcement [3] - There is a need for enhanced professional standards and legal literacy among enforcement personnel, especially when using non现场技术监控设备, to ensure that decisions are based on sufficient evidence and clear causal relationships [3]