来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2021年6月23日
文章结构
1-6段：最高法院判决，在一般情况下，警察无搜查令不得进入嫌疑人家中。
7-9段：各利益相关方对此判决的反应。
Adding to America’s ongoing discussion of the extent of police powers, the Supreme Court on Wednesday put limits on when police officers pursuing a fleeing suspect can enter a home without a warrant.
美国对警察权力范围的讨论还在继续，最高法院周三对追捕逃跑嫌疑人的警察在没有搜查令的情况下进入民宅进行了限制。
The high court ruled that when officers are pursuing someone suspected of a misdemeanor, a less serious crime, they cannot always enter a home without a warrant if a suspect enters.
最高法院裁定，当警察在追捕轻罪嫌疑人时，如果嫌疑人进入家中，警察不能总是在没有搜查令的情况下进入。
The court had previously given police greater freedom to enter homes in cases involving more serious crimes. In a 1976 case, the justices said that police in “hot pursuit” of a suspect believed to have committed a felony can enter a home without a warrant.
最高法院此前曾给予警察更大的自由，以便在涉及更严重犯罪的案件中进入住宅。在1976年的一个案件中，大法官们表示，警方在“穷追”被认为犯有重罪的嫌疑人时，可以在没有搜查令的情况下进入住宅。
The case the justices decided Wednesday is important both to law enforcement and to groups concerned about privacy. But it doesn’t give police a bright line for when they can and cannot enter a home to pursue someone suspected of committing a misdemeanor.
大法官周三裁定的案件对执法部门和关注隐私的团体都很重要。但它并没有给警方明确的界限，告诉他们什么时候可以或不能进入住宅去追捕犯有轻罪的嫌疑人。
“The flight of a suspected misdemeanant does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home. An officer must consider all the circumstances in a pursuit case to determine whether there is a law enforcement emergency. On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter — to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home. But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so — even though the misdemeanant fled,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a majority opinion for seven members of the court.
“轻罪嫌疑犯的逃跑并不总是无搜查令进入住宅的正当理由。在追捕案件中，警官必须考虑所有情况，以确定是否存在执法紧急情况。在许多情况下，警官是有充分理由进入的——以阻止迫在眉睫的暴力伤害、破坏证据或逃离家中。但当警官有时间拿到搜查令时，他必须申请搜查令——即使轻罪者在此期间逃跑了，”大法官埃琳娜·卡根代表多数票撰写意见书时写到（该案的投票结果是7比2）。
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said that, in their view, a suspect’s choice to flee alone should give police the ability to pursue that person into a home. They suggested the majority’s opinion leaves too much for officers to consider in the midst of a chase, providing “no guidance at all.”
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和大法官塞缪尔·阿利托表示，在他们看来，嫌疑人选择独自逃跑应该使警方有权力将嫌犯追捕到家中。他们认为，多数派的意见给在追捕过程中的警官设置了太多需要考虑的东西，“根本没有提供任何指导”。
Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said it remains to be seen how the decision will play out in the real world. The decision does not bar police from homes when they are chasing a misdemeanor suspect, but it does not give them free reign to enter either.
宪法问责中心主席伊丽莎白·怀德拉表示，这一决定在现实世界中会如何发挥作用还有待观察。这一决定并没有禁止警察在追捕轻罪嫌疑人时进入住宅，但也没有给警察进入住宅的自由。
“As our country continues to grapple with the limits and problems associated with law enforcement’s powers, the Court’s refusal to allow police unrestricted entry into the home is welcome,” she wrote in a statement.
她在一份声明中写道:“在我们的国家继续与执法权力相关的限制和问题作斗争之际，最高法院拒绝让警察不受限制地进入民宅是受欢迎的。”
Larry H. James, general counsel for the National Fraternal Order of Police, said he does not see much changing for police as a result of the ruling. The decision tells police to do what they always do, he said, which is “use your common sense, use your training.” He said the guidance for police from the ruling is: “When the situation warrants immediate action, take it. When it doesn’t, get a warrant.”
国家警察兄弟会总法律顾问拉里·h·詹姆斯表示，他不认为这一裁决会给警察带来多大改变。他说，这个决定告诉警察要做他们一直在做的事情，那就是“运用你的常识，运用你的训练。”他说，该裁决对警方的指导是:“当情况允许立即采取行动时，就采取行动。”如果没有，那就申请搜查令。”