"法學英文：David Leon Riley v. California, United States v. Brima Wurie."

"首先，本院依序考量Chimel v. California案關心的事項，但本院不會忽略United States v. Robinson案的告誡，「基於解除武器和搜證之需求，執法人員進行合法逮捕之附帶人身搜索是合理的，不論「在特定逮捕情況下是否實際找到武器或犯罪證據」。本院沒有採行United States v. Robinson案反對的「依個案事實判斷」，而是考量「合法逮捕之附帶搜索原則」適用於特定類別之物品﹙手機﹚，是否與「Chimel v. California案之無令狀搜索例外的合法逮捕之附帶搜索原則」相悖。We first consider each Chimel concern in turn. In doing so, we do not overlook United States v. Robinson’s admonition that searches of a person incident to arrest, “while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence,” are reasonable regardless of “the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found.” Rather than requiring the “case-by-case adjudication” that United States v. Robinson rejected, we ask instead whether application of the search incident to arrest doctrine to this particular category of effects would “untether the rule from the justifications underlying the Chimel exception.”"