| 中文摘要 |
"聯邦政府首先建議本院在本案採用Arizona v. Gant案之標準。在Arizona v. Gant案，本院允許警方無令狀搜索被捕者的車輛，如果警方合理相信被捕者的車內有逮捕罪行之證據。若本院在本案採用Arizona v. Gant案之標準，即可允許無令狀搜索被捕者的手機，如果警方合理相信手機內有逮捕罪行之證據。但是Arizona v. Gant案是依據「車輛的特殊情況」而承認只為取得逮捕罪行之證據的「合法逮捕之附帶搜索」。Arizona v. Gant案是根據 Thornton v. United States案的見解做出判決，而Scalia大法官在Thornton v. United States案解釋「車輛的特殊情況」，是指對於機動車輛「民眾對車輛隱私保護期待減低」且「執法者有強烈執法需求」。基於本院之前已解釋的理由，手機搜索不具有前述這兩項特徵。The United States first proposes that the Gant standard be imported from the vehicle context, allowing a warrantless search of an arrestee’s cell phone whenever it is reasonable to believe that the phone contains evidence of the crime of arrest. But Arizona v. Gant relied on “circumstances unique to the vehicle context”?to endorse a search solely for the purpose of gathering evidence. JUSTICE SCALIA’s Thornton v. United States opinion, on which Arizona v. Gant was based, explained that those unique circumstances are “a reduced expectation of privacy” and “heightened law enforcement needs” when it comes to motor vehicles. For reasons that we have explained, cell phone searches bear neither of those characteristics." |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
