来源：《洛杉矶时报》
刊登日期：2021年2月25日
The 4th Amendment says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Too often, however, the privacy protected by that amendment has been undermined by exceptions expanded by the courts.
美国宪法第四修正案：公民的人身、住宅、文件和财物不受无理搜查和扣押的权利，不得侵犯。然而，该修正案所保护的隐私权常常因法院扩展的例外情况而受到损害。
On Wednesday the Supreme Court was asked in a California case to carve out yet another exception — allowing police to enter someone’s home without a warrant when an officer has probable cause to believe that even a minor offense had been committed. Such a ruling would be a disaster for the right of privacy.
周三，在加州的一个案件中，最高法院被要求开辟出另一个例外——允许警察在没有搜查令的情况下进入某人的家中，如果警官有合理依据相信有人犯了轻微的罪行。这样的裁决对隐私权来说将是一场灾难。
In October 2016 California Highway Patrol Officer Aaron Weikert noticed that Arthur Lange was playing loud music and honking his horn as he was driving home in Sonoma. Weikert later testified that he believed the music and honking violated state laws against excessive noise.
2016年10月，加州公路巡警亚伦·韦克特注意到，亚瑟·兰格在索诺马开车回家的路上大声播放音乐并按喇叭。韦克特后来作证说，他认为音乐和鸣笛违反了禁止过度噪音的加州法律。
Weikert followed Lange home and, as Lange was preparing to turn into his driveway, the officer said he turned on flashing red lights, a signal that a motorist should stop. Lange pulled into his garage and then, as the electric garage door was descending, Weikert used his foot to stop it from closing. Then he entered the garage and noticed signs that Lange was drunk.
韦克特跟着兰格回家，当兰格准备转入自家的车道时，警官说自己打开了闪烁的红灯，这是司机应该停车的信号。兰格把车开进车库，然后，当车库的电动门正在下降时，韦克特用脚阻止它关上。然后他走进车库，注意到兰格喝醉了的迹象。
Lange’s lawyer sought to suppress the evidence obtained by Weikert because the officer had entered Lange’s residence without a warrant. But California courts took the position that the officer didn’t need a warrant because of “exigent circumstances” — legal jargon for an emergency in which police must act swiftly. The Supreme Court in the past has indicated that “hot pursuit” of a fleeing felony suspect is also an exigent circumstance.
兰格的律师试图排除韦克特获得的证据，因为这名警察在没有搜查令的情况下进入了兰格的住所。但加州法院的立场是，由于“紧急情况”，警官不需要搜查令，“紧急情况”是法律数据，指警察必须迅速采取行动的情况。最高法院过去曾指出，“紧急追捕”逃逸的重罪嫌疑人也是一种紧急情况。
In this case, the “exigent circumstances” were lame: The officer supposedly had probable cause to believe that Lange, by ignoring the flashing lights, had committed the misdemeanor offenses of failing to obey a lawful order and obstructing a police. Thus a cascade of minor offenses became a justification for invading the privacy of Lange’s home.
在本案中，“紧急情况”的说法站不住脚：据说，警官有合理依据相信兰格无视闪光灯，犯下了不服从合法命令和妨碍警官的轻罪。因此，一连串的轻微犯罪成为了侵犯兰格家隐私的正当理由。
To resolve this case, the court need not hold that police may never enter a home without a warrant in search of a misdemeanor suspect; the issue is whether the court will adopt a rule permitting all such actions, no matter how trivial the offense.
为了解决这一案件，法院不必认为警察在没有搜查令的情况下不得进入居所寻找轻罪嫌疑人；问题在于，法院是否会通过一项规则，允许所有这类搜查，无论罪行有多么微不足道。
At Wednesday’s argument, some justices seemed concerned about the effect of a decision in favor of Lange. Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed out that in some states, misdemeanor offenses include serious crimes. Lange’s lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, acknowledged that fact, but he argued persuasively that the court should treat such incidents on a case-by-case basis.
在周三的辩论中，一些大法官似乎对有利于兰格的裁决造成的影响感到担忧。Breyer大法官指出，在一些州，misdemeanor包括严重犯罪。兰格的律师杰弗里·费舍尔承认这一事实，但他令人信服地辩称，法院应该逐案处理此类事件。
That would be a sensible approach at any time. But it’s especially important that the court not give police officers more latitude to skirt the 4th Amendment during a national reckoning about police misconduct.
这在任何时候都是明智的做法。但尤其重要的是，在全美对警察不当行为进行清算时，最高法院不能给警察更多的自由，让他们绕过第四修正案。