​​​​​​​【警察考試-警察英文-呂艾肯】 ​​​​​​​

Unanimous Supreme Court Requires Warrant for Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest  

最高法院一致同意對於手機的附帶搜索需申請令狀

A unanimous Supreme Court today ruled in Riley v. California that officers must obtain a warrant before searching an arrestee's cell phone incident to arrest. The ruling deals a blow to law enforcement, to be sure. But it only means that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone, or satisfy some other exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement (like exigent circumstances), before conducting a search of the phone. In general, this should not be overly difficult, assuming that an officer can meet the requirements for a warrant: an arresting officer need only drop a seized cell phone into an aluminum-foil Faraday bag which can isolate a phone from radio waves to prevent the destruction of data from the outside, and obtain a warrant for a later search. Again: the ruling still preserves other exceptions to the warrant requirement, so that officers can search a phone without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances, for example.

最高法院今日無異議一致裁定，Riley與加州案中警方在搜尋被逮捕人手機中內容以進行逮捕前須取得搜索令。這項裁決無異對於執法人員是項打擊。但它僅意味著，執法必須在搜查手機前需取得令狀，或搜查該手機之前，必須滿足憲法第四條修正案令狀需求的一些其他例外（如緊急情況下）。一般來說，這應該不會過度的困難，假定警方能夠符合搜索票的要求：進行逮捕的警方僅需將扣押的手機放入鋁箔的電磁波隔絕袋（Faraday bag）隔離無線電波，防止外部的數據的破壞，之後再申請搜索令。再次聲明：此判決仍保留對於另狀要求的例外（異議），所以，例如在緊急情況下，警方可以無令狀查閱電話。

l  exigent: 緊急的苛求的　　　　　　

l  Overly:過度的; 過度防護的

l  deal a heavy blow to: 給…以沉重打擊

l  Faraday bag電磁波隔絕袋

The disputes, which tested the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches, were part of a wider debate over electronic privacy that ultimately may produce a Supreme Court showdown over the National Security Agency’s telephone-data surveillance program.

檢驗憲法第四條修正案和修正案禁止不合理搜查的爭論，擴及更廣，最終可能迫使最高法院對於國安局在電話數據監控計劃這部分電子隱私攤牌。

l  Showdown: 決戰; 攤牌

The ruling breaks little new ground on Fourth Amendment analysis. Instead, it applies a familiar framework to a relatively new technology, cell phones. (The ruling applies to both smart phones and flip phones.)

對於第四修正案分析，這項裁決不算是種創舉。它用在相對較新穎的技術-手機這熟悉的框架中。（這項裁決適用於智慧型手機和翻蓋（老式）手機。）

l  break new ground: 新的突破，開疆破土

The Court applied the familiar balancing test, "assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Wyoming v. Houghton. As to government interests, the Court looked to the two recognized interests in a search incident to arrest in Chimel: to remove weapons that threaten officer safety or could be used for escape, and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

法院提出普遍的權衡標準，“評估，一方面是，何種程度會達到[搜索]侵擾個人私隱，另一方面，能達到促進政府合法利益的程度。“懷俄明州與Houghton的訴訟中。政府權益這方，法院對於Chimel的逮捕在手機查詢事件中的兩個公認權益：排除會威脅警方安全或可用於逃逸的武器，並防止證物的銷毀。

l  balancing test: 其意為: 被告有自由行使權力而無畏據遭報復之權益，但檢方也有廣泛起訴裁量權之權益，遇此兩利益衝突時，法院依據個案事實，綜合審酌一切因素決定何者利益須受到保護。法官授權一切綜合因素來裁決判斷，雖較模糊不明確，但實務操作上，法院考慮因素都約略相同。(摘自月旦法學雜誌第223期)

（美）平衡原則（法院在權衡個人權利和政府權力或州權和聯邦最高權之間相關權益時所使用的司法原則，尤其涉及憲法，則要決定哪種權占優勢）

l  Wyoming v. Houghton

「員警如有相當理由，亦得檢查於車內任何可能藏匿物品處所發現之乘客攜帶物而之為搜索。」

在案例中，懷俄明州公路巡警攔停 Houghton 所駕駛的車輛。當警方詢問駕駛人交通違規問題時，員警注意到駕駛人的襯衫口袋內有皮下注射用的針頭。當駕駛人承認用針頭注射藥物時，員警要求車內乘客離車。員警隨後搜索車上其他乘客座位區，並在後座發現一隻皮包，Houghton宣稱是她的。員警在皮包內搜出安非他命和麻醉藥物後，Houghton 因此遭逮捕。Houghton 就其持有毒品之重罪提出上訴，並主張在車內搜索乘客私人財物已違反憲法增修條文第四條之規定。但聯邦最高法院卻予以駁回，並判決指出：「員警如有相當理由而搜索車輛時，亦有權搜索乘客可能藏匿之攜帶物品。」聯邦最高法院針對搜索引述兩項正當理由說明之：

(1) 乘客之隱私期待權較低

(2) 若一概不准檢查乘客所攜帶之物品，則政府所重視之執法效能勢將大為減弱。而且若搜索機動車輛，尚須苦苦等待令狀到來時，則可能導致證據及違禁品永遠消失矣！

目前雖然員警得搜查乘客所攜帶之物品，但仍不得對乘客恣意進行搜身，惟有在乘客被逮捕後，方得進行搜身。                  (摘自: 劉嘉發，美國警察交通攔停後得採取之措施簡介)

l  Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752（1969）

1969年Chimel v. California一案，警察持逮捕狀至嫌疑犯的家中執行逮捕的任務，嫌疑犯外出並不在家中，警察告知嫌疑犯之妻子，其來的目的，嫌疑犯的妻子讓警察進入室內。警察面等待十至十五分鐘以後，嫌疑犯由外面返回家中，警察將逮捕令交給嫌疑犯，請嫌疑犯同意警察查看屋內的，嫌疑犯拒絕同意，警察有搜索權，於是，警察在嫌疑犯的妻子陪同之下，對嫌疑犯所居住的三個房間全部加以搜索，範圍包括閣樓、停車間等等，搜索的時間前後約四十五分鐘至一個小時左右，在搜索的過程，警察發現贓物，之後以贓物罪將嫌疑犯起訴。美國聯邦最高法院於Chimel訴加州一案中，判決認為警官在執行逮捕後搜查被捕者身上的武器和證據是合理的。再次將附帶搜查的範圍限於“立即可控制的範圍”（(Immediate Control Doctrine)。所谓立即可控制原則是從被逮捕的被告或是犯罪嫌疑人的角度觀察，即警察在逮捕被告或是犯罪嫌疑人时，对该被告或是犯罪嫌疑人立即可控制的範圍，執法人員均可以附帶搜索。該原則主要是基於附带搜查“保護執法人員及其它相關人員安全”和“避免證據毀損或遺失”的目的而設定。但事實上何謂“立即可控制的範圍”並不是Chimel案所能解釋的，最高法院對之前的裁決進行了澄清。

The Court said that the government lacked an interest in protecting officer safety or preventing escape, because "a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee's escape." It said that the government lacked an interest in protecting evidence, because officers can easily protect evidence on a seized cell phone (by turning it off, or putting it in a Faraday bag, to prevent remote wiping, for example). The Court said that there was little evidence that destruction of evidence was even a problem.)

法院表示，因為“手機本身無法用來當成武器以為害逮捕的警方人員或用來實行被逮捕者的逃逸，”所以政府這方以保護警方人員的安全或防止逃逸這理由上，缺乏站得住腳的權益。而保護證據這理由上，政府缺乏站得住腳的權益，是因為警方可以輕易地保護好對查獲手機的證據（例如，透過關機，或把它放進電磁波隔絕袋，以防止遠端銷毀）。法院表示，幾乎沒有證據表明，證據的破壞是因為此一問題。

l  Effectuate：實現；招致

On the other side of the balance, the Court recognized the massive storage capacity and vast personal information contained in cell phones, and contained remotely but accessible by cell phones, and said that the search was a significant invasion of privacy, even if diminished in the context of an arrest.

在權衡另一方上，法院確認手機中會含有大量存儲容量和私人訊息，且可透過手機進行遠端取得，即使在逮捕的過程中沒啥用到這手段，但這樣的調查已明顯侵犯隱私。

On the government interest side, Robinson concluded that the two risks identified in Chimel--harm to officers and destruction of evidence--are present in all custodial arrests. There are no comparable risks when the search is of digital data. In addition, Robinson regarded any privacy interests retained by an individual after arrest as significantly diminished by the fact of the arrest itself. Cell phones, however, place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals. As search of the information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search considered in Robinson.

在政府權益方面，1973年United States v. Robinson一案中，法庭認為，在Chimel案件中確認了兩項風險– 對警方的危害和證據的銷毀- 存在於監禁逮捕中。但在調查電子數據時確沒有類似的風險。此外，Robinson一案中，法庭認為當逮捕已成事實，逮捕的需要將大大減低，此時應保留個人隱私權。然而，手機確實可掌握大量個人個人資訊。由於在手機上的資訊搜索已不像Robinson一案中被認為是簡單的肢體/物理搜索類型。

l  in the hands of: 在…掌握中； 交托給； 由…處理[負責]； 被…控制

l  1973年U.S. v. Robinson 案中，美國聯邦最高法院認為，附帶搜索僅適用於合法的拘禁逮捕，若僅是警察對於人民的短暫居留則不適用之，理由在於唯有在拘禁逮捕的情況下，始有防止被逮捕人湮滅證據或攻擊執法人員的必要，若僅是對於人民自由的短暫剝奪，則並不存在此等考量。

Justice Alito wrote a concurrence, arguing that the search-incident-to-arrest rule should be based on the government's interest in "the need to obtain probative evidence," and not the two Chimel interests. He also called on Congress and state legislatures "to assess and respond to to [technological advances] that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future."

Alito大法官投同意票，主張盤查與附帶搜索，應根據政府權益在“需得到證明證據的需要上”，而非兩項Chimel案中的權益(即危害警方安全與證據摧毀上)。他也呼籲國會和各州議會“對於已發生或未來幾乎肯定會發生的科技發展進行評估和應對。”

“We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime,” Roberts wrote. “Privacy comes at a cost.”

“我們不能否認，今天的決策會對執法機關打擊犯罪行為產生影響。”美國最高法院首席大法官Roberts寫道。“但侵犯隱私必須付出代價”

The Justice Department said it will work with law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with the ruling. 美國司法部表示，將與執法部門合作，確保遵守裁決。

美國幾項關於隱私權的判決案例

​​​​​​​