警察有权搜查公众手机信息吗?——莱利诉加利福尼亚州案
|
摘要
美国宪法第四修正案对侦查机关的搜查行为做出了严格的限制,禁止对公民的人身、财产、住宅等进行任意搜查,必须在有充分的理由并获得搜查令的情况下才可进行。但是,第四修正案的内容与界限并非一成不变,特别是随着时代的发展,有关是否可以搜查手机信息的问题引起了诸多争论。在莱利诉加利福尼亚州一案中,法院认为手机中存储有大量隐私信息,这与传统上警察附带搜查的实物不可同日而语。即便为打击犯罪,也不可以侵犯隐私权为代价对手机信息进行附带搜查,而必须在具备搜查令的前提下才可展开搜查。
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States imposes strict restrictions on the search behaviors conducted by the investigation authorities. It prohibits unreasonable search of citizens' body,property,and residence etc. Search must be conducted with sufficient reason and a search warrant. However,the content and boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are not locked. With the development of the society,whether to search mobile phone information has caused a lot of arguments. In the case of Riley v. California,the Court determined that mobile phones stored a lot of private information,and thus differed from those material subject searched by the police. The court also ruled that police search should not violate the right to privacy even to fight against crime. Phone search can only be conducted with a search warrant.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States imposes strict restrictions on the search behaviors conducted by the investigation authorities. It prohibits unreasonable search of citizens' body,property,and residence etc. Search must be conducted with sufficient reason and a search warrant. However,the content and boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are not locked. With the development of the society,whether to search mobile phone information has caused a lot of arguments. In the case of Riley v. California,the Court determined that mobile phones stored a lot of private information,and thus differed from those material subject searched by the police. The court also ruled that police search should not violate the right to privacy even to fight against crime. Phone search can only be conducted with a search warrant.
引文
Riley v.California,573U.S.___(2014).
(1)以及就合众国诉伍瑞案(案号为第13-212号)发至第一巡回上诉法院的调卷复审令。
(1)See Kentucky v.King,563 U.S._,_.
(2)Chimelv.California,395 U.S.752.
(3)United States v.Robinson,414 U.S.218.
(4)414 U.S.,at 235.
(5)Arizona v.Gant,556 U.S.332.
(6)Id.,at 343.
(7)Wyoming v.Houghton,526 U.S.295,300.
(8)See,e.g.,Warden,Md.Penitentiary v.Hayden,387 U.S.294,298-299.
(9)See Missouri v.Mc Neely,569 U.S._,_.
(1)See Illinois v.Mc Neely,531 U.S.326,331-333.
(2)See Michigan v.Summers,452 U.S.692,705,n.19.
(1)See Cal.Penal Code Ann.§§12025(a)(1),12031(a)(1)(West 2009).
(2)App.in No.13-132,p.20.
(3)Id.,at 11-13.
(4)Cal.Penal Code Ann.§246(2008)with§186.22(b)(4)(B)(2014).
(5)App.in No.13-132,at 24,26.
(6)No.D059840(Cal.App.,Feb.8,2013),App.to Pet.for Cert.in No.13-132,pp.1a-23a.
(7)People v.Diaz,51 Cal.4th 84,244 P.3d 501(2011).
(8)See id.,at 93,244 P.3d,at 505-506.
(9)App.to Pet.for Cert.in No.13-132,at 24a
(10)571 U.S.___(2014).
(11)See 18 U.S.C.§922(g);21 U.S.C.§841(a).
(1)612 F.Supp.2d 104(Mass.2009).
(2)728 F.3d 1(2013).
(3)See id.,at 8-11.
(4)571 U.S.___(2014).
(5)Brigham City v.Stuart,547 U.S.398,403(2006).
(6)Vernonia School Dist.47J v.Acton,515 U.S.646,653(1995).
(7)Johnson v.United States,333 U.S.10,14(1948).
(8)See Kentucky v.King,563 U.S.___,___(2011)(slip op.,at 5-6).
(9)Weeks v.United States,232 U.S.383,392.
(10)See 3 W.La Fave,Search and Seizure§5.2(b),p.132,and n.15(5th ed.2012).
(11)See Arizona v.Gant,556 U.S.332,350(2009)(提及了这一例外规则的“多变历史”)。
(12)Chimelv.California,395 U.S.752(1969).
(13)Id.,at 753-754.
(14)Id.,at 762-763.
(1)Id.,at 763,768.
(2)United States v.Robinson,414 U.S.218(1973).
(3)Id.,at 220,223.
(4)Id.,at 235.
(5)Ibid.
(6)Ibid.
(7)Id.,at 236.
(8)Ibid.
(9)California v.Acevedo,500 U.S.565(1991).
(10)See 556 U.S.,at 338.
(11)556 U.S.,at 343.
(12)Ibid(.quoting Thornton v.United States,541 U.S.615,632(2004)(斯卡利亚大法官的协同意见)。
(13)556 U.S.,at 343.
(14)See A.Smith,Pew Research Center,Smart phone Ownership—2013 Update(June 5,2013).
(1)Wyoming v.Houghton,526 U.S.295,300(1999).
(2)414 U.S.,at 235.
(3)Ibid.
(4)Gant,supra,at 343.See also Knowles v.Iowa,525 U.S.113,119(1998).
(5)See 414 U.S.,at 223,236,n.7.
(6)728 F.3d,at 10.
(7)395 U.S.,at 763.
(8)Chadwick,433 U.S.,at 14-15.
(9)See,e.g.,Warden,Md.Penitentiary v.Hayden,387 U.S.294,298-299(1967).
(1)See Brief for Petitioner in No.13-132,p.20;Brief for Respondent in No.13-212,p.41.
(2)See Illinois v.Mc Arthur,531 U.S.326,331-333(2001);Chadwick,supra,at 13,and n.8.
(3)See Dept.of Commerce,National Institute of Standards and Technology,R.Ayers,S.Brothers,&W.Jansen,Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics(Draft)29,31(SP 800-101 Rev.1,Sept.2013)(以下简称Ayers).
(4)Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in No.13-132,p.11.
(5)See 395 U.S.,at 763-764.
(6)See Brief for Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies et al.as Amici Curiae in No.13-132,pp.9-10;see also Tr.of Oral Arg.in No.13-132,p.48.
(7)See,e.g.,i Phone User Guide for i OS 7.1 Software 10(2014).
(8)See Tr.of Oral Arg.in No.13-132,at 50;see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in No.13-132,at 19.
(9)See Ayers 30-31.
(10)See Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 9.
(11)See,e.g.,Dept.of Justice,National Institute of Justice,Electronic Crime Scene Investigation:A Guide for First Responders 14,32(2d ed.Apr.2008);Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 4-6.
(1)Missouri v.McN eely,569 U.S.___,___(2013)(slip op.,at 10)[quoting Roadenv.Kentucky,413 U.S.496,505(1973);some internal quotation marks omitted].
(2)See App.to Reply Brief in No.13-132,p.3a(diagramming the few necessary steps).
(3)531 U.S.326.
(4)See id.,at 331-333.
(5)414 U.S.,at 232[quoting People v.Chiagles,237 N.Y.193,197,142 N.E.583,584(1923)];see also 414 U.S.,at 237(鲍威尔大法官的协同意见指出:“被合法羁押逮捕的人不享有宪法第四修正案中的重要隐私利益。”)。
(6)See Chadwick,433 U.S.,at 16,n.10(searches of a person are justified in part by“reduced expectations of privacy caused by the arrest”).
(7)Maryland v.King,569 U.S.___,___(2013)(slip op.,at 26).
(8)Ibid.
(9)395 U.S.,at 766-767,n.12.
(10)See Draper v.United States,358 U.S.307,310-311(1959).
(11)See,e.g.,United States v.Carrion,809 F.2d 1120,1123,1128(CA5 1987)(billfoldand address book);United States v.Watson,669 F.2d 1374,1383-1384(CA11 1982)(wallet);United States v.Lee,501 F.2d 890,892(CADC 1974)(purse).
(12)Brief for United States in No.13-212,p.26.
(13)See Kerr,Foreword:Ac-counting for Technological Change,36 Harv.J.L.&Pub.Pol’y 403,404-405(2013).
(1)Chadwick,supra.
(2)See Kerr,supra,at 404;Brief for Center for Democracy&Technology et al.as Amici Curiae 7-8.
(3)See id.,at 30;United States v.Flores-Lopez,670 F.3d 803,806(CA7 2012).
(4)由于联邦政府和加州政府都认可这些案件关于附带搜查,那么就不涉及搜查电子数据是否等同于其他情形下的搜查的问题。
(5)See Harris Interactive,2013 Mobile Consumer Habits Study(June 2013).
(6)See,e.g.,United States v.Frankenberry,387 F.2d 337(CA2 1967)(法院意见)。
(7)See Ontario v.Quon,560 U.S.746,760(2010).
(8)See United States v.Jones,565 U.S.___,___(2012)(索托马约尔大法官的协同意见)(slip op.,at 3)(“GPS定位系统对个人的社会活动能够形成精确全面的记录,这些记录能够反映这个人包括家庭、政治、职业、种族和性关系在内的各种细节。”)
(9)See Brief for Electronic Privacy Information Center as Amicus Curiae in No.13-132,p.9.
(1)United States v.Kirschenblatt,16 F.2d 202,203(CA2).
(2)See New York v.Belton,453 U.S.454,460,n.4(1981)(将“载体”解释为“能够承载其他信息的物品”)。
(3)See Brief for Electronic Privacy Information Center in No.13-132,at 12-14,20.
(4)See Brief for United States in No.13-212,at 43-44.
(5)Michigan v.Summers,452 U.S.692,705,n.19(1981)(quoting Dunaway v.New York,442 U.S.200,219-220(1979)(怀特大法官的协同意见)。
(6)556 U.S.,at 343.
(7)541 U.S.,at 631;see also Wyoming v.Houghton,526 U.S.,at 303-304.
(8)See 3 W.La Fave,Search and Seizure§7.1(d),at 709,and n.191.
(9)See id.,§7.1(d),at 713,and n.204.
(1)556 U.S.,at 345.
(2)See Brief for United States in No.13-212,at 51-53.
(3)Smith v.Maryland,442 U.S.735(1979).
(4)See id.,at 745-746.
(5)See Tr.of Oral Arg.in No.13-132,at 38-43;see also Flores-Lopez,670 F.3d,at 807(“如果警察有权翻开随身日记本查看所有者的地址,那么就应当有权打开他的手机查看电话号码。”)。
(6)Sykes v.United States,564 U.S.1,___(2011)(斯卡利亚大法官的异议意见)(slip op.,at 7)(讨论了《携带武器的职业犯罪法案》下的对应物标准)。
(7)Coolidge v.New Hampshire,403 U.S.443,481(1971).
(8)See Mc Neely,569 U.S.,at___(slip op.,at 11-12);id.,at___(罗伯茨大法官的部分协同意见和部分异议意见)(slip op.,at 8)(描述的是一种“警察可以通过电子邮件将搜查令的申请发送至法官,然后法官签署搜查令后发回给警察,这些能够在15分钟内完成”)。
(1)Kentucky v.King,563 U.S.,at___(slip op.,at 6)[quoting Minceyv.Arizona,437 U.S.385,394(1978)].
(2)563 U.S.,at___.
(3)433 U.S.,at 15,n.9.
(4)See Reply Brief in No.13-132,at 8-9;Brief for Respondent in No.13-212,at 30,41.
(5)See Mc Neely,supra,at___(slip op.,at 6).比如,在伍瑞案中,第一巡回上诉法院持异议意见的法官提出,这些紧急情形本可以证明对伍瑞手机的搜查是合法的。See 728 F.3d 1,17(2013)(霍华德大法官的意见)(讨论了来自“我的家”的多个未接来电,而“我的家”是一个疑似藏毒窝点)。但是多数意见认为,政府并未因此处于紧急状态。See id.,at 1.政府在庭审中提出了相同的意见。See Brief for United States in No.13-212,p.28,n.8.
(6)10 Works of John Adams 247-248(C.Adams ed.1856).
(7)Id.,at 248[quoted in Boyd v.United States,116 U.S.616,625(1886)].
(8)Boyd,supra,at 630.
(1)Cf.ante,at 9.
(2)See T.Clancy,The Fourth Amendment:Its History and Interpretation 340(2008);T.Taylor,Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation28(1969);Amar,Fourth Amendment First Principle,107 Harv.L.Rev.757,764(1994).In Weeks v.United States,232 U.S.383,392(1914),我们认为第四修正案并未打破这一规则。See also Taylor,supra,at 45;Stuntz,The Substantive Origins of Criminal Procedure,105 Yale L.J.393,401(1995)[“附带搜查(对被捕的嫌疑人进行搜查)的权力在18世纪中叶已经形成,并且在第四修正案中并未做任何改变。”]
(3)See Dillon v.O’Brien,16 Cox Crim.Cas.245,249-251(1887)(citing Regina,v.Frost,9 Car.&P.129,173 Eng.Rep.771).
(4)16 Cox Crim.Cas.,at 249-250.See also Holkerv.Hennessey,141 Mo.527,537-540,42 S.W.1090,1093(1897).
(5)See Weeks,supra,at 392.
(6)See F.Wharton,Criminal Pleading and Practice§60,p.45(8th ed.1880)(“进行逮捕时,一定要从嫌疑人身上拿走他可能在庭审辩护时用作证据的物品”);J.Bishop,Criminal Procedure§§210-212,p.127(2d ed.1872)(如果警察发现“与犯罪有关的财产,不论物品还是金钱,只要有理由相信它与可能的犯罪结果、犯罪工具或者有关交易的直接证据有关,就可以进行搜查,因为它们可能被提交至法庭。”)
(7)Cf.Hill v.California,401 U.S.797,799-802,and n.1(1971)(日记);Marron v.United States,275 U.S.192,193,198-199(1927)(总账目和详单);Gouled v.United States,255 U.S.298,309(1921),基于其他理由被撤销,Warden,Md.Penitentiary v.Hayden,387 U.S.294,300-301(1967)(文件);see United States v.Rodriguez,995 F.2d 776,778(CA7 1993)(地址簿);United States v.Armendariz-Mata,949 F.2d 151,153(CA5 1991)(笔记本);United States v.Molinaro,877 F.2d 1341(CA7 1989)(钱包);United States v.Richardson,764F.2d 1514,1527(CA11 1985)(钱包和文件);United States v.Watson,669 F.2d 1374,1383-1384(CA11 1982)(钱包里找到的证件);United States v.Castro,596 F.2d 674,677(CA5 1979),cert.denied,444 U.S.963(1979)(口袋里找到的文件);United States v.Jeffers,520 F.2d 1256,1267-1268(CA7 1975)(3个笔记本和会议记录);Bozel v.Hudspeth,126 F.2d 585,587(CA10 1942)(文件,通告、广告一类的物品,“记载详细姓名和地址的备忘录”);United States v.Park Avenue Pharmacy,56 F.2d 753,755(CA2 1932)(“大量空白处方”和1个支票簿).See also 3 W.La Fave,Search and Seizure§5.2(c),p.144(5th ed.2012)(“下级法院在援引罗宾逊案时,认为以获取证据为目的的搜查是完全不受限制的”);W.Cuddihy,Fourth Amendment:Origins and Original Meaning 847-848(1990)(在殖民地时期,“任何被捕者都能预料到,他的外套、身体、行李以及背包都可能会被搜查”)。
(8)395 U.S.752(1969).
(9)See Arizona v.Gant,556 U.S.332,361-363(2009)(阿利托大法官的反对意见)。
(1)See Katz v.United States,389 U.S.347,353-359(1967).
(2)See also 18 U.S.C.§2510 et seq.
(3)See Brief for United States in No.13-212,pp.2-3.
(1)以及就合众国诉伍瑞案(案号为第13-212号)发至第一巡回上诉法院的调卷复审令。
(1)See Kentucky v.King,563 U.S._,_.
(2)Chimelv.California,395 U.S.752.
(3)United States v.Robinson,414 U.S.218.
(4)414 U.S.,at 235.
(5)Arizona v.Gant,556 U.S.332.
(6)Id.,at 343.
(7)Wyoming v.Houghton,526 U.S.295,300.
(8)See,e.g.,Warden,Md.Penitentiary v.Hayden,387 U.S.294,298-299.
(9)See Missouri v.Mc Neely,569 U.S._,_.
(1)See Illinois v.Mc Neely,531 U.S.326,331-333.
(2)See Michigan v.Summers,452 U.S.692,705,n.19.
(1)See Cal.Penal Code Ann.§§12025(a)(1),12031(a)(1)(West 2009).
(2)App.in No.13-132,p.20.
(3)Id.,at 11-13.
(4)Cal.Penal Code Ann.§246(2008)with§186.22(b)(4)(B)(2014).
(5)App.in No.13-132,at 24,26.
(6)No.D059840(Cal.App.,Feb.8,2013),App.to Pet.for Cert.in No.13-132,pp.1a-23a.
(7)People v.Diaz,51 Cal.4th 84,244 P.3d 501(2011).
(8)See id.,at 93,244 P.3d,at 505-506.
(9)App.to Pet.for Cert.in No.13-132,at 24a
(10)571 U.S.___(2014).
(11)See 18 U.S.C.§922(g);21 U.S.C.§841(a).
(1)612 F.Supp.2d 104(Mass.2009).
(2)728 F.3d 1(2013).
(3)See id.,at 8-11.
(4)571 U.S.___(2014).
(5)Brigham City v.Stuart,547 U.S.398,403(2006).
(6)Vernonia School Dist.47J v.Acton,515 U.S.646,653(1995).
(7)Johnson v.United States,333 U.S.10,14(1948).
(8)See Kentucky v.King,563 U.S.___,___(2011)(slip op.,at 5-6).
(9)Weeks v.United States,232 U.S.383,392.
(10)See 3 W.La Fave,Search and Seizure§5.2(b),p.132,and n.15(5th ed.2012).
(11)See Arizona v.Gant,556 U.S.332,350(2009)(提及了这一例外规则的“多变历史”)。
(12)Chimelv.California,395 U.S.752(1969).
(13)Id.,at 753-754.
(14)Id.,at 762-763.
(1)Id.,at 763,768.
(2)United States v.Robinson,414 U.S.218(1973).
(3)Id.,at 220,223.
(4)Id.,at 235.
(5)Ibid.
(6)Ibid.
(7)Id.,at 236.
(8)Ibid.
(9)California v.Acevedo,500 U.S.565(1991).
(10)See 556 U.S.,at 338.
(11)556 U.S.,at 343.
(12)Ibid(.quoting Thornton v.United States,541 U.S.615,632(2004)(斯卡利亚大法官的协同意见)。
(13)556 U.S.,at 343.
(14)See A.Smith,Pew Research Center,Smart phone Ownership—2013 Update(June 5,2013).
(1)Wyoming v.Houghton,526 U.S.295,300(1999).
(2)414 U.S.,at 235.
(3)Ibid.
(4)Gant,supra,at 343.See also Knowles v.Iowa,525 U.S.113,119(1998).
(5)See 414 U.S.,at 223,236,n.7.
(6)728 F.3d,at 10.
(7)395 U.S.,at 763.
(8)Chadwick,433 U.S.,at 14-15.
(9)See,e.g.,Warden,Md.Penitentiary v.Hayden,387 U.S.294,298-299(1967).
(1)See Brief for Petitioner in No.13-132,p.20;Brief for Respondent in No.13-212,p.41.
(2)See Illinois v.Mc Arthur,531 U.S.326,331-333(2001);Chadwick,supra,at 13,and n.8.
(3)See Dept.of Commerce,National Institute of Standards and Technology,R.Ayers,S.Brothers,&W.Jansen,Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics(Draft)29,31(SP 800-101 Rev.1,Sept.2013)(以下简称Ayers).
(4)Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in No.13-132,p.11.
(5)See 395 U.S.,at 763-764.
(6)See Brief for Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies et al.as Amici Curiae in No.13-132,pp.9-10;see also Tr.of Oral Arg.in No.13-132,p.48.
(7)See,e.g.,i Phone User Guide for i OS 7.1 Software 10(2014).
(8)See Tr.of Oral Arg.in No.13-132,at 50;see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in No.13-132,at 19.
(9)See Ayers 30-31.
(10)See Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 9.
(11)See,e.g.,Dept.of Justice,National Institute of Justice,Electronic Crime Scene Investigation:A Guide for First Responders 14,32(2d ed.Apr.2008);Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 4-6.
(1)Missouri v.McN eely,569 U.S.___,___(2013)(slip op.,at 10)[quoting Roadenv.Kentucky,413 U.S.496,505(1973);some internal quotation marks omitted].
(2)See App.to Reply Brief in No.13-132,p.3a(diagramming the few necessary steps).
(3)531 U.S.326.
(4)See id.,at 331-333.
(5)414 U.S.,at 232[quoting People v.Chiagles,237 N.Y.193,197,142 N.E.583,584(1923)];see also 414 U.S.,at 237(鲍威尔大法官的协同意见指出:“被合法羁押逮捕的人不享有宪法第四修正案中的重要隐私利益。”)。
(6)See Chadwick,433 U.S.,at 16,n.10(searches of a person are justified in part by“reduced expectations of privacy caused by the arrest”).
(7)Maryland v.King,569 U.S.___,___(2013)(slip op.,at 26).
(8)Ibid.
(9)395 U.S.,at 766-767,n.12.
(10)See Draper v.United States,358 U.S.307,310-311(1959).
(11)See,e.g.,United States v.Carrion,809 F.2d 1120,1123,1128(CA5 1987)(billfoldand address book);United States v.Watson,669 F.2d 1374,1383-1384(CA11 1982)(wallet);United States v.Lee,501 F.2d 890,892(CADC 1974)(purse).
(12)Brief for United States in No.13-212,p.26.
(13)See Kerr,Foreword:Ac-counting for Technological Change,36 Harv.J.L.&Pub.Pol’y 403,404-405(2013).
(1)Chadwick,supra.
(2)See Kerr,supra,at 404;Brief for Center for Democracy&Technology et al.as Amici Curiae 7-8.
(3)See id.,at 30;United States v.Flores-Lopez,670 F.3d 803,806(CA7 2012).
(4)由于联邦政府和加州政府都认可这些案件关于附带搜查,那么就不涉及搜查电子数据是否等同于其他情形下的搜查的问题。
(5)See Harris Interactive,2013 Mobile Consumer Habits Study(June 2013).
(6)See,e.g.,United States v.Frankenberry,387 F.2d 337(CA2 1967)(法院意见)。
(7)See Ontario v.Quon,560 U.S.746,760(2010).
(8)See United States v.Jones,565 U.S.___,___(2012)(索托马约尔大法官的协同意见)(slip op.,at 3)(“GPS定位系统对个人的社会活动能够形成精确全面的记录,这些记录能够反映这个人包括家庭、政治、职业、种族和性关系在内的各种细节。”)
(9)See Brief for Electronic Privacy Information Center as Amicus Curiae in No.13-132,p.9.
(1)United States v.Kirschenblatt,16 F.2d 202,203(CA2).
(2)See New York v.Belton,453 U.S.454,460,n.4(1981)(将“载体”解释为“能够承载其他信息的物品”)。
(3)See Brief for Electronic Privacy Information Center in No.13-132,at 12-14,20.
(4)See Brief for United States in No.13-212,at 43-44.
(5)Michigan v.Summers,452 U.S.692,705,n.19(1981)(quoting Dunaway v.New York,442 U.S.200,219-220(1979)(怀特大法官的协同意见)。
(6)556 U.S.,at 343.
(7)541 U.S.,at 631;see also Wyoming v.Houghton,526 U.S.,at 303-304.
(8)See 3 W.La Fave,Search and Seizure§7.1(d),at 709,and n.191.
(9)See id.,§7.1(d),at 713,and n.204.
(1)556 U.S.,at 345.
(2)See Brief for United States in No.13-212,at 51-53.
(3)Smith v.Maryland,442 U.S.735(1979).
(4)See id.,at 745-746.
(5)See Tr.of Oral Arg.in No.13-132,at 38-43;see also Flores-Lopez,670 F.3d,at 807(“如果警察有权翻开随身日记本查看所有者的地址,那么就应当有权打开他的手机查看电话号码。”)。
(6)Sykes v.United States,564 U.S.1,___(2011)(斯卡利亚大法官的异议意见)(slip op.,at 7)(讨论了《携带武器的职业犯罪法案》下的对应物标准)。
(7)Coolidge v.New Hampshire,403 U.S.443,481(1971).
(8)See Mc Neely,569 U.S.,at___(slip op.,at 11-12);id.,at___(罗伯茨大法官的部分协同意见和部分异议意见)(slip op.,at 8)(描述的是一种“警察可以通过电子邮件将搜查令的申请发送至法官,然后法官签署搜查令后发回给警察,这些能够在15分钟内完成”)。
(1)Kentucky v.King,563 U.S.,at___(slip op.,at 6)[quoting Minceyv.Arizona,437 U.S.385,394(1978)].
(2)563 U.S.,at___.
(3)433 U.S.,at 15,n.9.
(4)See Reply Brief in No.13-132,at 8-9;Brief for Respondent in No.13-212,at 30,41.
(5)See Mc Neely,supra,at___(slip op.,at 6).比如,在伍瑞案中,第一巡回上诉法院持异议意见的法官提出,这些紧急情形本可以证明对伍瑞手机的搜查是合法的。See 728 F.3d 1,17(2013)(霍华德大法官的意见)(讨论了来自“我的家”的多个未接来电,而“我的家”是一个疑似藏毒窝点)。但是多数意见认为,政府并未因此处于紧急状态。See id.,at 1.政府在庭审中提出了相同的意见。See Brief for United States in No.13-212,p.28,n.8.
(6)10 Works of John Adams 247-248(C.Adams ed.1856).
(7)Id.,at 248[quoted in Boyd v.United States,116 U.S.616,625(1886)].
(8)Boyd,supra,at 630.
(1)Cf.ante,at 9.
(2)See T.Clancy,The Fourth Amendment:Its History and Interpretation 340(2008);T.Taylor,Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation28(1969);Amar,Fourth Amendment First Principle,107 Harv.L.Rev.757,764(1994).In Weeks v.United States,232 U.S.383,392(1914),我们认为第四修正案并未打破这一规则。See also Taylor,supra,at 45;Stuntz,The Substantive Origins of Criminal Procedure,105 Yale L.J.393,401(1995)[“附带搜查(对被捕的嫌疑人进行搜查)的权力在18世纪中叶已经形成,并且在第四修正案中并未做任何改变。”]
(3)See Dillon v.O’Brien,16 Cox Crim.Cas.245,249-251(1887)(citing Regina,v.Frost,9 Car.&P.129,173 Eng.Rep.771).
(4)16 Cox Crim.Cas.,at 249-250.See also Holkerv.Hennessey,141 Mo.527,537-540,42 S.W.1090,1093(1897).
(5)See Weeks,supra,at 392.
(6)See F.Wharton,Criminal Pleading and Practice§60,p.45(8th ed.1880)(“进行逮捕时,一定要从嫌疑人身上拿走他可能在庭审辩护时用作证据的物品”);J.Bishop,Criminal Procedure§§210-212,p.127(2d ed.1872)(如果警察发现“与犯罪有关的财产,不论物品还是金钱,只要有理由相信它与可能的犯罪结果、犯罪工具或者有关交易的直接证据有关,就可以进行搜查,因为它们可能被提交至法庭。”)
(7)Cf.Hill v.California,401 U.S.797,799-802,and n.1(1971)(日记);Marron v.United States,275 U.S.192,193,198-199(1927)(总账目和详单);Gouled v.United States,255 U.S.298,309(1921),基于其他理由被撤销,Warden,Md.Penitentiary v.Hayden,387 U.S.294,300-301(1967)(文件);see United States v.Rodriguez,995 F.2d 776,778(CA7 1993)(地址簿);United States v.Armendariz-Mata,949 F.2d 151,153(CA5 1991)(笔记本);United States v.Molinaro,877 F.2d 1341(CA7 1989)(钱包);United States v.Richardson,764F.2d 1514,1527(CA11 1985)(钱包和文件);United States v.Watson,669 F.2d 1374,1383-1384(CA11 1982)(钱包里找到的证件);United States v.Castro,596 F.2d 674,677(CA5 1979),cert.denied,444 U.S.963(1979)(口袋里找到的文件);United States v.Jeffers,520 F.2d 1256,1267-1268(CA7 1975)(3个笔记本和会议记录);Bozel v.Hudspeth,126 F.2d 585,587(CA10 1942)(文件,通告、广告一类的物品,“记载详细姓名和地址的备忘录”);United States v.Park Avenue Pharmacy,56 F.2d 753,755(CA2 1932)(“大量空白处方”和1个支票簿).See also 3 W.La Fave,Search and Seizure§5.2(c),p.144(5th ed.2012)(“下级法院在援引罗宾逊案时,认为以获取证据为目的的搜查是完全不受限制的”);W.Cuddihy,Fourth Amendment:Origins and Original Meaning 847-848(1990)(在殖民地时期,“任何被捕者都能预料到,他的外套、身体、行李以及背包都可能会被搜查”)。
(8)395 U.S.752(1969).
(9)See Arizona v.Gant,556 U.S.332,361-363(2009)(阿利托大法官的反对意见)。
(1)See Katz v.United States,389 U.S.347,353-359(1967).
(2)See also 18 U.S.C.§2510 et seq.
(3)See Brief for United States in No.13-212,pp.2-3.