| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Prado Navarette v. California ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Prado Navarette v. California
''Prado Navarette v. California'', , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the tip was unreliable and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a "scathing" dissenting opinion in which he argued the tip was unreliable and that the majority's opinion threatened the freedom and liberty of all citizens.〔Nina Totenberg, (''Supreme Court Gives Police New Power To Rely On Anonymous Tips'' ), NPR, April 22, 2014 (characterizing Justice Scalia's dissent as "scathing").〕 Likewise, many commentators have noted ''Navarette'' represented a departure from earlier precedent and that the opinion opened the door for expansive new police powers.〔See, e.g., Christopher D. Sommers, ''Presumed Drunk Until Proven Sober: The Dangers and Implications of Anonymous Tips Following'' Navarette v. California, 60 327, 352 (2015).〕 Some commentators have also noted that the case leaves open several important questions, including the unanswered question of whether anonymous reports of extremely dangerous behavior require fewer indicia of reliability before police may act upon those reports.〔Andrew B. Kartchner, (J.L.'s ''Time Bomb Still Ticking: How'' Navarette's ''Narrow Holding Failed to Address Important Issues Regarding Anonymous Tips'' ), 44 1, 19–20 (2014).〕 Other scholars have argued it was highly unlikely that Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were actually driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they were stopped by police.〔Joshua C. Teitelbaum, (''Probabilistic Reasoning in'' Navarette v. California ), 62 158, 167 (2014) (claiming there was likely a 1/100 chance Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were driving while drunk).〕
==Background==
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「Prado Navarette v. California」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.
|
|