| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
(詳細はUnited States Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied from the importance of the right violated.
The ''Bivens'' case has been subsequently interpreted to create a cause of action against the federal government similar to the one 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates against the states.
==Background of the case==
Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) agents searched the house of the plaintiff, Webster Bivens, and arrested him without a warrant. Drug charges were filed but were later dismissed by a U.S. Commissioner (now called Magistrate Judge). Bivens filed a lawsuit alleging the violation of his Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The government claimed that the violation allowed for only a state law claim for invasion of privacy and that the Fourth Amendment provides no cause of action but only a rebuttable defense for the FBN agents. The District Court agreed and dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and also for Bivens's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on that secondary issue of whether a plaintiff can bring a claim in federal court based solely on an alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Bivens was represented ''pro bono'' by Stephen A. Grant.〔http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/866909#〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|