美國第四修正案具體都講了什么——中英對照

美國第四修正案

第四修正案是美國憲法的一部分，也是權利法案的關鍵部分，旨在保護個人

權利，限制政府的權力。它保護公民免受不合理的搜查和扣押，并確立了基于合

理懷疑的搜查令要求。

第四修正案內容："人民在他們的人身、住宅、文件和財物上的安全不得受到

侵犯，不得進行不合理的搜查和扣押；除非有合理的懷疑，有宣誓或斷言支持，

否則不得發布搜查令，而且搜查令必須明確描述搜查的地點以及要扣押的人或物。

"

免受不合理搜查和扣押：

第四修正案確保個人在人身、住宅、文件和財物方面擁有合理的隱私，政府

不能在不滿足特定條件的情況下進行搜查和扣押。

合理懷疑：

政府必須有合理懷疑認為犯罪已經發生或者有犯罪證據存在，才能進行搜查

和扣押。合理懷疑是指基于具體事實的合理信念，即犯罪已經發生或者可以在要

搜查的地點找到犯罪證據。

搜查令：

通常情況下，第四修正案要求進行搜查和扣押時提供搜查令。搜查令是由法

官或執法官員簽發的書面文件，授權執法人員進行搜查或扣押。為了獲得搜查令，

政府必須向法官或執法官員證明其確有進行搜查或扣押的合理懷疑。

無需搜查令的例外情況：

盡管通常需要搜查令，但在以下情況下無需搜查令即可進行搜查和扣押：

a. 同意：如果個人自愿同意接受搜查，第四修正案不要求必須得有搜查令。

b. 明顯可見：如果犯罪證據對于合法在場的執法人員來說明顯可見，他們可

以在沒有搜查令的情況下扣押證據。

c. 緊急情況：當存在對公共安全的直接威脅時，警察可以在沒有搜查令的情

況下進行搜查和扣押。該例外情況適用于犯罪證據可能被破壞、需要防止危害或

傷害、或需要追捕逃跑嫌疑人的情況。

d. 逮捕事由搜查：在合法逮捕后，警察可以對被逮捕的人以及其直接控制的

區域進行搜查，目的是確保執法人員的安全和保護證據。

e. 汽車搜查：由于車輛具有流動性，最高法院認為執法人員在沒有搜查令的

情況下對車輛進行搜查擁有更大的自由裁量權。

搜查令的具體性要求：

搜查令必須明確描述要搜查的地點以及要扣押的人或物。這個要求確保搜查

和扣押的范圍限制在搜查令中明確提及的特定區域和物品之內。

排除性規則：

第四修正案的排除性規則規定，通過違反第四修正案而獲得的證據在刑事訴

訟中通常是不可采用的。排除性規則起到威懾作用，阻止執法人員侵犯個人的第

四修正案權利。

第四修正案在保護個人隱私和權利方面起著重要作用，平衡個人權利與維護

公共安全的合法需要。多年來，法院對其進行了解釋和適用，以適應不斷變化的

技術和環境，同時堅持其核心原則。

英語原文參閱下文。

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial part of

the Bill of Rights, which safeguards individual rights and limits the power of the

government. It protects citizens against unreasonable arches and izures and

establishes the requirement of a warrant bad on probable cau.

Text of Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be cure in their

persons, hous, papers, and effects, against unreasonable arches and izures,

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cau,

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

arched, and the persons or things to be ized."

Protection against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures:

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that individuals have the right to be

cure in their persons, hous, papers, and effects. This means that people have

a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas, and the government cannot

conduct arches or izures without meeting certain criteria.

Probable Cau:

The government must have probable cau to believe that a crime has been

committed or that there is evidence of a crime before conducting a arch or

izure. Probable cau refers to a reasonable belief bad on specific facts that

a crime has occurred or that evidence of a crime can be found in the place to be

arched.

Warrants:

In general, the Fourth Amendment requires that arches and izures be

conducted with a warrant. A warrant is a written order issued by a judge or

magistrate that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a arch or izure.

To obtain a warrant, the government must demonstrate to the judge or

magistrate that there is probable cau for the arch or izure.

Exemptions from Warrant Requirement:

While warrants are generally required, there are exceptions when a arch or

izure can be conducted without a warrant:

a. Connt: If an individual voluntarily connts to a arch, the Fourth

Amendment does not require a warrant.

b. Plain View: If evidence of a crime is clearly visible to an officer who is

lawfully prent in a location, the officer may ize it without a warrant.

c. Exigent Circumstances: When there is an immediate threat to public safety,

the police may conduct a arch or izure without a warrant. This

exception applies when there is a risk of destruction of evidence, the need

to prevent harm or injury, or the pursuit of a fleeing suspect.

d. Incident to Arrest: Following a lawful arrest, the police may conduct a

arch of the person arrested and the area within their immediate control

for the purpo of officer safety and prerving evidence.

e. Automobile Searches: Due to the mobile nature of vehicles, the Supreme

Court has recognized that law enforcement officers have greater leeway

in conducting arches of vehicles without a warrant.

Specificity in Warrants:

Warrants must describe with particularity the place to be arched and the

persons or things to be ized. This requirement ensures that the scope of the

arch or izure is limited to the specific areas and items mentioned in the

warrant.

Exclusionary Rule:

The Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained

through an unreasonable arch or izure in violation of the Fourth Amendment

is generally inadmissible in criminal proceedings. The exclusionary rule acts as a

deterrent, discouraging law enforcement officers from violating individuals'

Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment plays a vital role in protecting individual privacy and

balancing it against the legitimate needs of law enforcement to maintain public

safety. It has been interpreted and applied by courts over the years to adapt to

changing technologies and circumstances while upholding its core principles.