| 翻訳と辞書 |
| U.S. v. Knotts ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
United States v. Knotts
''United States v. Knotts'', (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of an electronic surveillance device. The defendants argued that the use of this device was a Fourth Amendment violation. The device in question was described as a beeper that could only be tracked from a short distance. During a single trip, officers followed a car containing the beeper, relying on beeper signal to determine the car's final destination. The Court unanimously held that since the use of such a device did not violate a legitimate expectation of privacy there was no search and seizure and thus the use was allowed without a warrant.〔United States v. Knotts, , p. 285 (1983)〕 It reasoned that a person traveling in public has no expectation of privacy in one's movements. Since there was no search and seizure there was not a Fourth Amendment violation.〔United States v. Knotts, , p. 285 (1983)〕
==Background==
Minnesota law enforcement agents suspected that one of the defendants was purchasing chloroform for the manufacture of methamphetamine, an illegal drug, and arranged with the manufacturer to have a radio transmitting beeper placed within the drum of chloroform the next time it was purchased. Following the purchase, the drum was placed into a vehicle driven by another defendant. Police followed the defendants' vehicle after the purchase, maintaining visual contact for most of the journey, however they had to use the beeper to find the cabin where the defendants stopped. The cabin was owned by Knotts, the respondent in this case. Following visual surveillance of his cabin, the authorities acquired a warrant to search the premises, and used the evidence found therein to convict Knotts.〔United States v. Knotts, , pp. 278-79 (1983)〕
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「United States v. Knotts」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.
|
|