| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Schmerber v. California ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Schmerber v. California
''Schmerber v. California'', 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark decision〔Aron Hogden, ''Reconciling A Split of Authority: A South Dakota Response to Recent Developments in Drunk Driving Law'', 59 372, 373 (2014) (describing ''Schmerber v. California'' as a "landmark case"); see also Kelsey P. Black, (''Undue Protection Versus Undue Punishment: Examining the Drinking & Driving Problem Across the United States'' ), 40 463, 469 (2007) (describing ''Schmerber v. California'' as a "watershed case" in the nation's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence).〕 by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Prior to ''Schmerber'', the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.
In a 5–4 opinion, the Court held that forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony; therefore, it does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.〔''Schmerber v. California'', .〕 The Court also held that intrusions into the human body ordinarily require a search warrant.〔''Schmerber'', 384 U.S. at 770.〕 However, the Court ruled that the involuntary, warrantless blood sample taken in this case was justified under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception because evidence of blood alcohol would be destroyed by the body's natural metabolic processes if the officers were to wait for a warrant.〔''Schmerber'', 384 U.S. at 770 ("in the present case, however, (officer ) might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened the destruction of evidence") (internal quotations omitted).〕 In 2013, the Supreme Court clarified in ''Missouri v. McNeely'' that the natural metabolism of alcohol in the bloodstream is not a ''per se'' exigency that would always justify warrantless blood tests of individuals suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.〔''Missouri v. McNeely'', 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013).〕
In the years following the Court's decision in ''Schmerber'', many legal scholars feared the ruling would be used to limit civil liberties.〔Kelsey P. Black, (''Undue Protection Versus Undue Punishment: Examining the Drinking & Driving Problem Across the United States'' ), 40 463, 478–79 (2007).〕 Other scholars, including Nita A. Farahany, Benjamin Holley, and John G. New, have suggested courts may use the ruling in ''Schmerber'' to justify the use of mind reading devices against criminal suspects.〔Nita A. Farahany, (''Incriminating Thoughts'' ), 64 351, 355 (2012); Benjamin Holley, ''It's All in Your Head: Neurotechnological Lie Detection & the Fourth & Fifth Amendments'', 28 1, 18 (2009); John G. New, ''If You Could Read My Mind: Implications of Neurological Evidence for Twenty-First Century Criminal Jurisprudence'', 29 179, 197 (2008); cf. Kiel Brennan-Marquez, (''A Modest Defense of Mind Reading'' ), 15 214 (2013) ("The modern era of self-incrimination jurisprudence began with ''Schmerber v. California''.").〕 Because the Court's ruling in ''Schmerber'' prohibited the use of warrantless blood tests in most circumstances, some commentators argue that the decision was responsible for the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analyses to test for controlled substances in criminal investigations.〔John A. Scanlan, Jr., (''Playing the Drug-Testing Game: College Athletes, Regulatory Institutions, & the Structures of Constitutional Argument'' ), 62 (1987).〕
==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「Schmerber 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.
|
|