【纽约时报 20121017】狗也会触犯隐私权吗？
【中文标题】狗也会触犯隐私权吗？
【原文标题】Will Privacy Go to the Dogs?
【登载媒体】纽约时报
【原文作者】JEFFREY A. MEYER
【原文链接】http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/opinion/the-supreme-court-must-draw-a-firm-line-on-police-searches.html
万圣节前夕，美国最高法院在狗身上花了不少时间。大法官们将听证两个来自佛罗里达的案件，以判断“警犬鼻嗅”是否违反了宪法第四修正案所保护的隐私权。这两起案件还没有引起很多媒体的关注，但是最高法院的裁决将以难以预料的方式，深远地影响到我们的权利。
第四修正案保护人们免受“无理搜查和查封”的权利。通常情况下，除非警方擅闯的场所受合理的隐私权保护，否则他们不需要合理的理由或者搜查令来支持调查行为。几十年来，最高法院一直在努力定义一个人“受合理的隐私权保护”是什么意思——尤其是当警方使用增强感知的新技术进行调查时。
其中一个新案件要求最高法院明确，一条狗识别违禁品的准确率必须达到什么程度。正如戴维•苏特大法官曾经在不同意见书中所说：“永不犯错的狗，仅仅是法律中虚构的生物。”
我和我的妻子几年前正好在最高法院里遇到过类似的事情。我们当时正在出席亨利•布莱克蒙大法官助理们的聚会，我错误地驾驶了一辆我们的狗经常搭乘的车，那是一条喜欢网球的澳大利亚牧羊犬。当我们驶入戒备森严的最高法院地下停车场大门时，一个保安走出岗亭，牵着一条德国牧羊犬绕车检查。狗突然狂吠起来，保安冷冰冰地让我打开后备箱。我看到法院的大狗抬起前腿摇着尾巴，在我家的狗最喜欢的网球中叼起一个。当然，并没有发现什么炸弹和违禁品。
第二个有关狗的案件是询问，警方是否可以让缉毒犬在房子门口寻找房屋内藏有大麻的迹象。最高法院一直倾向于给予民众居所特别的隐私保护权。2001年，最高法院通过安东宁•斯卡利亚大法官的意见书裁定，警方在一间房屋的马路对面停车，在没有搜查令的情况下使用热敏探测仪扫描房屋外墙，以寻找通常用来种植大麻的高强度灯光所产生的异常热源的行为，违反了房主的隐私权。
如果警方不能在街道对面用热敏仪扫描你的房子，为什么要允许他们在院子里用狗来搜查呢？政府部门的观点是，狗只有发现违禁品时才会发出警报，而热敏探测仪会探测到房子里的各种热源，包括“清白的”和“犯罪的”热源。就像斯卡利亚大法官所指出的，无论是用来种植作物的灯光热源，还是“女主人洗桑拿”时产生的热源。
但是显然，这种区别具有误导性。如果法院做出利于政府部门的裁决，那么警方就有理由在每一家学校、超市和电影院的门口都安排缉毒警犬，作为排查毒品的例行手段。狗的鼻嗅永远不会触犯隐私权，因此警方在搜查嫌疑人时也永远不需要再申请搜查令。
而且，今天的狗将被明天的高科技违禁品识别设备所取代，以这两个有关狗的案件中的逻辑推断，政府部门将可以随时扫描人们的居所和身体，寻找各类违禁品（或者非违禁品，比如种植大麻的灯光，这种电器将和违法行为划上等号）。
同时，有些人的居住条件既没有封闭社区，也没有能阻挡警方进入院子的大门，他们享受到的隐私权就比别人要少，而最高法院曾经信誓旦旦地承诺“每个人住所就是他的堡垒”和“穷人的房屋风能进，雨能进，国王不能进”，这又算什么呢？这等于是让宪法的保护职能基于狗鼻子和高科技探测设备的准确性，而不是基于狗或者设备让警方有机会侵犯的私人空间。
10月31日，法院将有机会延续美国长久以来的隐私原则。正确的选择是确保我们在家中的权利，以及在非紧急情况下，免受没有搜查令的狗和探测设备的骚扰。
原文：
THIS Halloween, the United States Supreme Court will devote its day to dogs. The court will hear two cases from Florida to test whether “police dog sniffs” violate our privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. These two cases have not yet grabbed many headlines, but the court’s decisions could shape our rights to privacy in profound and surprising ways.
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Ordinarily, unless the police trespass or otherwise intrude upon a reasonable expectation of privacy, they need not have probable cause or a warrant to justify their investigative activity. For decades now, the court has struggled with what it means for a person to have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” — especially when the police investigate with sense-enhancing means or technology.
One of the new cases asks the court to clarify how accurate a dog must be in terms of its past identification of contraband — for, as Justice David H. Souter once warned in dissent, “The infallible dog, however, is a creature of legal fiction.”
My wife and I learned this firsthand at the Supreme Court itself several years ago. We were visiting the court for a reunion dinner of former law clerks of Justice Harry A. Blackmun. My mistake was to drive a car in which our dog — a tennis-ball-loving Australian shepherd — often rode. As we drove up to the back gate of the court to enter its highly secure underground parking garage, an officer emerged from a guard shack with a fearsome bomb-sniffing German shepherd and circled our car. The bomb dog suddenly perked up, and the officer coldly instructed me to open the trunk of my car. I watched as the court’s canine rose up on its haunches — tail wagging — and snagged from inside one of my dog’s prized tennis balls. No bombs or contraband were found.
The second of the court’s new dog cases asks if the police may take a drug-sniffing dog to the front porch of a home to sniff for evidence of marijuana inside. The court has always accorded special privacy protection for people’s homes. In 2001, the court ruled, in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that police officers violated a homeowner’s privacy when they parked across the street from a home and, without a warrant, used a thermal imaging device to scan the outside of the house for signs of unusual heat inside that might be caused by high-intensity lighting, which is often used to grow marijuana.
If the police can’t thermal-scan your home from the street, why let them dog-scan it from your front porch? The government argues that a dog is alerted only by illegal contraband, while a thermal imager is set off more generally by “innocent” and “guilty” heat of all kinds coming from a home — whether from grow lights or from, as Justice Scalia noted in the thermal imager case, “the lady of the house” as she “takes her daily sauna and bath.”
But, arguably, this distinction is misplaced. If the court rules for the government in the home-sniff case, it is hard to see why the police could not station drug-sniffing dogs outside the entrances to every school, supermarket and movie theater as a routine form of drug interdiction. Dog sniffs would never involve a privacy intrusion and therefore would not trigger the requirement that the police obtain a warrant or have individual suspicion.
Moreover, today’s dogs will give way to tomorrow’s high-tech contraband-scanning devices that, under the reasoning pressed in the dog cases, would free the government to conduct routine scans of people’s homes or their bodies for all manner of contraband (or possibly for noncontraband, like marijuana grow lights, that are most commonly associated with illegality).
In the meantime, those of us who neither live in gated communities nor build gates to keep the police from our porches will retain much less privacy protection in our homes, despite the court’s past assurance that “every man’s house is his castle” and even the “poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all forces of government.” This is the danger of basing the Constitution’s protection on the efficacy of a dog’s nose or the latest high-tech sensing device rather than on the privacy of the intimate space that a dog or device allows the police to invade.
On Oct. 31, the court will have the chance to preserve a long-held tenet of American privacy. The right choice is to affirm our rights in our homes and our persons to be free, in the absence of emergency circumstances, from the warrantless use of dogs and sense-enhancing technology.
本帖最后由 下个月 于 2012-10-20 17:58 编辑
前俩天看GW一集，也是有关于警犬查毒的，米国警察利用警犬罚款及没收毒品。所以说警犬无错，错在训练他们的人 哥就喜欢这种刚发的帖子，如果火了就是个前排，还可以混个脸熟;2.万一哪个白富美看中咱，说不定就把咱包养了。就算没人包养咱，咱也得经验了，稳赚不赔；3.就算这帖子没人回复了，沉贴了。也感觉是我弄沉的，特有成就感
本帖最后由 滔滔1949 于 2012-10-21 16:33 编辑
这也值得大惊小怪的？以反恐为名主导下的爱国者法案早把美国人的个人隐私剥夺的差不多了吧？区别只是你们能否察觉得到而已。在机场被脱衣检查，被人悄悄的随意检查邮箱，追踪个人信息，不经过法院程序就直接秘密关押都无所谓，还在意一两条狗去后院东闻西嗅吗？吵来吵去，无非自我安慰罢了。
页:
[1]