• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Air Law and Commerce >NOT IN MY BACKYARD: STATE V. QUIDAY AND WARRANTLESS AERIAL POLICE SURVEILLANCE
【24h】

NOT IN MY BACKYARD: STATE V. QUIDAY AND WARRANTLESS AERIAL POLICE SURVEILLANCE

机译：不在我的后院：状态V.星期三和无担保的航空警察监视

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

WHEN IS A SEARCH A "SEARCH"? The United States Supreme Court established a general answer to this question in the seminal Fourth Amendment case Katz v. United States. Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Katz held that in most situations, police intrusion becomes a search when it invades a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Justice Harlan's analysis was later adopted by a majority of the Court in California v. Ciraolo. This formula was open to much interpretation, and later courts bore the burden of applying it to a myriad of situations-including the unique air law issue of aerial police surveillance of individuals' homes and "curtilage," or the area immediately surrounding the home. Current Supreme Court precedent holds that warrantless aerial police surveillance of a person's fenced backyard and curtilage is generally permissible so long as the police officers are legally in the airspace and aircraft are not exceptionally rare in the area. This may come as a surprise to many homeowners around the country, who presumably believe they manifest a clear expectation of privacy in their backyards by erecting fences-structures intended to exclude wandering eyes. The Supreme Court of Hawai'i recently considered the concerns of such homeowners when it correctly ruled that warrantless aerial police surveillance of backyards and curtilage is impermissible under the Hawai'ian state constitution.6 The Hawai'ian high court interpreted the state constitution using the same reasonable expectation of privacy test employed by the U.S. Supreme Court in construing the Federal Constitution.7 The U.S. Supreme Court should reverse course on this important and timely air law issue and follow Quiday's reasoning; the Supreme Court's recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence suggests that it may be willing to do so.
机译：什么时候搜索“搜索”？美国最高法院在具有开创性的《第四修正案》 Katz诉美国案中确立了对该问题的一般性答复。哈兰法官在卡茨的同意意见认为，在大多数情况下，警察的入侵是在入侵某人的“合理的隐私期望”时进行的搜查。哈伦法官的分析后来在加利福尼亚州诉西拉罗案中被法院的多数通过。这个公式有很多解释，后来法院承担了将其应用于各种情况的负担，包括空中警察对个人房屋和“宅邸”或房屋附近区域进行空中监视的独特问题。最高法院目前的判例认为，只要警察合法地在领空内并且飞机在该地区并不罕见，通常就可以对一个人的后院和宅邸进行无谓的空中警察监视。这可能令全国各地的许多房主感到意外，他们大概认为他们通过竖起篱笆结构来排除流浪的眼睛，从而在后院表现出对隐私的明确期望。夏威夷最高法院最近正确地裁定，根据夏威夷州宪法，不允许对后院和宅邸进行无谓的空中警察监视。6夏威夷高等法院根据《宪法》解释了该州宪法。美国最高法院在解释《联邦宪法》时也对隐私测试提出了合理的期望。7美国最高法院应就这一重要而及时的航空法问题改变立场，并遵循Quiday的推理；最高法院最近的《第四修正案》判例表明，它可能愿意这样做。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号