VOA常速英语207--美国《宪法》第四修正案——确保公民隐私

In a bid to protect the rights of citizens, the founders 1 of the United States of America included in the Constitution, or the legal framework of the new government, ten Amendments 3: three to protect individual rights and seven to ensure justice. They are collectively named the Bill of Rights.

为了维护市民的权利，美利坚合众国的创建者们在《宪法》（或称美国新政府的法律框架）中写入了10条修正案：其中3条是为了保护个人的权利，另外7条是为了确保正义。这10条修正案合称为《权利法案》。

The Fourth Amendment 2 deals with issues of privacy. It states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 4 searches and seizures 6, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

第四修正案与隐私有关。其中写道，“人民的人身、住宅、文件和财产不受无理搜查和扣押的权利，不得侵犯。除依据可能成立的理由，以宣誓或代誓宣言保证，并详细说明搜查地点和扣押的人或物，不得发出搜查和扣押状。”

Search and seizure 5 of private property by authorities was a major grievance 7 with the framers of the Constitution. This is borne out in the writings of James Otis Jr., a colonial lawyer in Massachusetts who argued in court against Writs 9 of Assistance, used instead of warrants by British officials to enter private homes and businesses to search for evidence of smuggling 10. Writs never expired and were transferrable from one official to another.

当局搜查扣押个人财产是宪法制定者们一个主要的不满。这一点在马萨诸塞州殖民地律师詹姆斯 奥蒂斯的著作中就可以得到证实，詹姆斯在法庭上反对《搜查令状》，《搜查令状》授权英国官员可以在任何个人和企业的屋里搜查走私证据。《搜查令状》永远不会过期，而且可在官员之间手手相传。

Arguing before a British court that writs should not be legal, Otis said that with a writ 8, “Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice 11 or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.”

詹姆斯在一个英国法庭上辩称《搜查令状》违法时说道，只有《搜查令状》在手，“海关官员就可以随意进入我们的房屋；我们被命令要允许他们进入。他们的随从可以也可以随意进入，破坏锁头、栅栏和任何一切挡他们路的事物；无论他们的破门而入是出于恶意还是报复，任何个人、任何法庭都不能追究。他们不需要发誓，觉得可疑这个理由就再充分不过了。”

Otis lost that case. But his arguments, as well as memory of the violations 12 of privacy and unreasonable searches suffered by the colonists 13 under the British government, influenced the framers of the Constitution. And thus, the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deal with justice, took aim at unreasonable search and seizure.

虽然詹姆斯输掉了那场官司，但是他的辩论以及在英国政府统治下的被殖民者们所遭受的违背隐私和不合理搜查的记忆影响了《宪法》的制定者们。因此，《宪法》第一个与正义有关的修正案就直指不合理的搜查和扣押行为。

As a result, any search, seizure or arrest requires a judicially-sanctioned warrant which must be supported by probable cause. The warrant is limited in scope by specific information supplied to the issuing court. Evidence obtained without a warrant, and thus illegally, cannot be introduced into a criminal trial.

其结果是，任何搜查、扣押、逮捕行为都需要出示司法认可的保证书，保证书必须写明可以支持搜查的理由。从范畴上讲，保证书要受到提交给其下发法庭的特定信息的限制。因此，不是通过保证书获得的证据都是非法的，是不能供刑事审判使用的。

In the words of mid-20th century Supreme 14 Court Justice Potter Stewart, “At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."

正如20世纪中叶最高法院法官波特所言，“第四修正案的核心是公民待在自己家，并且不受政府无理由闯入的权利。”