| 翻訳と辞書 |
| United States v. Brignoni-Ponce ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
''United States v. Brignoni-Ponce'', , was the case in which the Supreme Court determined it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a roving patrol car to stop a vehicle solely on the basis of the driver appearing to be of Mexican descent.〔Fragmomen Jr., Austin. "Rights of Aliens Upon Arrest: Revisited." International Migration Review 9.3 (1975): 383. JSTOR. Web. 9 Oct. 2011.〕 A roving patrol car must have articulable facts that allow for an officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying illegal aliens beyond their ethnicity. The Court handed down a 9-0 decision that affirmed the Circuit Court’s ruling in the case.〔(United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 US 873 - Supreme Court 1975 )〕
==Background==
As part of normal procedure for the United States Border Patrol in Southern California there was a permanent traffic checkpoint set up Interstate 5 just outside of San Clemente, California. On March 11, 1973, the checkpoint had been closed because of inclement weather so the officers sat on the side of the highway in their vehicle with their headlights facing northbound traffic. They pursued a vehicle with three occupants in it, stating later that their only reason for pursuing the vehicle was because of the occupant's apparent Mexican ethnicity.
The officers questioned Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce and his two passengers about their citizenship and discovered that Brignoni-Ponce's two passengers had entered the country illegally.〔Mathews, Linda. "Justices further Curb Searches for Aliens." Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): B1. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1987). Jul 01 1975. Web. 29 Sep. 2011〕 The officers proceeded to arrest the three individuals. The driver was charged with two counts of knowingly transporting illegal immigrants, a violation of § 274 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 228 and the two passengers were arrested for entering the country illegally.
At the trial for the defendant, he argued that the two passengers should not have to testify because their statements were the result of an illegal seizure, but his motion was denied.〔(United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 US 873 - Supreme Court 1975 )〕 The two passengers testified and the defendant was found guilty of both counts. The defendant then appealed the decision saying that because the stop was based solely on the basis of his ethnicity, it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects a person from unreasonable search and seizures.
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. Brignoni-Ponce」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.
|
|