(单词翻译:单击)
Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics,
大家好，我是克雷格，这是政府与政治速成班，
and today, we're gonna continue our discussion of the Bill of Rights,
今天我们继续讨论《权利法案》，
and talk about something that may actually be useful to you.
以及一些可能对你有用的东西。
We're gonna talk about when the police are allowed to search your house, your car, and even you.
我们要谈谈什么时候警察可以搜查你的房子，你的车，甚至你。
But not me.
但不是我。
I have immunity.
我能免疫。
I'm on YouTube.
我在YouTube上。
Right, is that how it works, Stan?
是这样的吗，斯坦?
It's not how it works?
不是这样的吗?
I'm in trouble.
我遇到了麻烦。
You might think that this only matters if you are, you know, a criminal, and if you are, then you should be paying close attention,
你可能认为这只在你是罪犯的情况下才重要，如果你是罪犯，你就应该密切关注，
but even if you haven't committed any crimes and you are unlucky enough to be stopped by the police, these protections apply.
但是，即使你没有犯罪，而且很不幸被警察拦住，这些保护措施还是适用的。
The question of when and where and how the police can conduct a search falls under the general topic of Criminal Procedure.
警察何时何地以及如何进行搜查的问题属于刑事诉讼的一般主题。
In this case, the second word is important.
在这种情况下，第二个单词很重要。
The courts usually look at how the police are acting, and the protections courts have supported are primarily procedural.
法院通常关注警察的行为，法院支持的保护主要是程序性的。
What this means is that there is no unlimited, sometimes called substantive, right to have the police not search you or your home.
这意味着有限制的，有时被称为实质性的，让警察不搜查你或你家的权利。
The criminal procedure civil liberties are found in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments,
刑事诉讼公民自由在第四、第五和第六修正案中都有体现，
but today we're only gonna look at the Fourth amendment, which reads,
但是今天我们只看第四修正案，上面写着，
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
“人民在自己的人身、房屋、证件和财物中享有的不受无理搜查和扣押的权利，不受侵犯，
and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
除非有合理的理由，并经宣誓或誓词支持，
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
并特别说明搜查的地点和要扣押的人员或物品，否则不得发出搜查令。
“ You can see right away that this is not an absolute right.
“你可以马上看出这不是绝对的权利。
The framers made sure that we are only protected from unreasonable searches and seizures,
制宪者确保我们只受到不合理搜查和扣押的保护，
and they added that the police are supposed to get a warrant before they search you.
他们还说，警察在搜查你之前应该得到搜查令。
Let's start with the warrant requirement, because it's kinda confusing.
让我们从授权要求开始，因为这有点令人困惑。
A search warrant is a piece of paper issued by a judge, authorizing law enforcement officers to search something,
搜查令是法官签发的一张纸，授权执法人员搜查某物，
usually your house, but possibly your car or your person or your desk eagle.
通常是你的房子，但可能是你的车，你的人，你的桌子。
I'm not hiding anything in there.
我没有藏任何东西。
What?
什么？
According to the Fourth Amendment, for the police to get a judge to issue a warrant, they must have probable cause,
根据第四修正案，警察要想让法官签发逮捕令，必须有可能的理由，
which is more than just a suspicion or an anonymous tip, although sometimes judges will issue warrants on pretty flimsy probably cause.
这不仅仅是一种怀疑或匿名的提示，虽然有时法官会以很脆弱的理由签发逮捕令。
When they are issued, warrants are supposed to be specific, laying out what the police are searching for and where they expect to find it.
当发布时，搜查令应该是具体的，包括警察在寻找什么以及他们希望在哪里找到。
This means that if the warrant says the police can search your garage for a stolen car, they can't look in your kitchen drawers and cupboards,
这意味着，如果搜查令上说警察可以搜查车库寻找失窃的汽车，就不能搜查厨房抽屉和橱柜，
because A, the warrant says they can search your garage
因为第一，搜查令说他们可以搜查你的车库，
and B, they're looking for a car, and you can't hide a car in your kitchen drawers, unless it's a very small car.
第二，他们在找一辆车，车不可能藏在厨房的抽屉里，除非是辆很小的车。
I drive a Prius, which is pretty small, but it doesn't fit in my kitchen drawers.
我开的是一辆普锐斯，它很小，但不能放进厨房的抽屉里。
I've tried.
我试过了。
Even when I take the whisk out.
即使我把搅拌器拿出来。
You'll notice that I qualified my statement about warrants.
你会注意到我对权证的陈述是有限制的。
You do this a lot when you're talking about criminal procedure.
当你谈论刑事诉讼时，你经常这样做。
I said, “When they are issued, “
我说，“当它们被发布的时候”，
despite the fact that the Fourth Amendment seems to say that the police always need a warrant,
尽管第四修正案似乎说警察总是需要搜查令，
the courts have ruled that it is not always required for the police to engage in a reasonable search.
但法院裁决，警察并不总是需要进行合理的搜查。
What this means is that if the police have probable cause to search you,
这意味着，如果警察有可能有理由搜查你，
say, they catch you pocketing powdered donuts in the grocery store, they don't always need to go to the judge to search you.
比如说，他们发现你在杂货店里把炸面圈装进口袋，并不总是需要去找法官。
What makes a reasonable search is a question that the courts have wrestled with.
如何进行合理的搜查是法院一直在努力解决的问题。
Sometimes, like with a stolen car in the kitchen cabinet, it's pretty obvious.
有时候，就像厨房橱柜里有辆偷来的车，这是显而易见的。
But many times it isn't.
但很多时候并非如此。
For example, if the warrant allows the police to search your kitchen for illegal hand grenades
例如，如果搜查令允许警察搜查你的厨房寻找非法手榴弹，
and they look in your freezer and find illegal drugs instead, that's probably reasonable,
而他们却在你的冰箱里寻找非法毒品，这可能是合理的，
because freezers are where most people store their illegal hand grenades, and also their drugs,
因为冰柜是大多数人存放非法手榴弹和毒品的地方，
and if the police stop you for speeding, which is a violation of traffic laws, also known as a crime,
如果警察因为你超速而阻止你，超速是违反交通法规的，也被称为犯罪，
and then search your car and find a dead body in the trunk, the courts have ruled that this is reasonable, too.
然后搜查你的车，在后备箱里发现一具尸体，法院裁定这也是合理的。
It's important to realize that the warrant and reasonableness requirements are not meant to prevent the police from stopping criminals caught in the act.
重要的是要认识到，逮捕令和合理的要求并不是为了阻止警察阻止犯罪分子在行动中被捕。
If the police, after chasing a masked man carrying a bag with a dollar sign on it running away from a bank that has just been reported robbed by a man with a gun and mask manage to catch him, they don't need an arrest warrant to take him into custody,
如果警察追逐后抓住了一个提着印有“美元”字样的提包，从一家刚被报道遭持枪戴面具男子抢劫的银行跑出来的面具男，他们不需要逮捕令就能将其拘留,
and because the running away and the bag of money are pretty suggestive, the police will have probable cause to search the guy, who in my mind, looks like the Hamburglar for the gun.
而且因为逃跑和那袋钱很有暗示性，警察有可能有理由去搜查那个家伙，在我看来，他就像那个偷枪的强盗。
And the question is, can they use the gun as evidence?
问题是，他们能用枪作为证据吗?
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
让我们进入《思想泡泡》。
One of the most important Supreme Court cases dealing with searches and seizures is Mapp v. Ohio, decided in 1961.
最高法院处理搜查和扣押案件中最重要的案件之一是1961年判决的“宾州诉俄亥俄州案”。
The facts of the case are pretty wild.
这个案子的事实相当离奇。
The police went to the home of Dollree Mapp to search for explosives and gambling equipment.
警方前往多利·马普的家中搜查爆炸物和赌博设备。
They didn't have a warrant, so she didn't let them in.
他们没有搜查令，所以她不让他们进来。
They came back a bit later with a fake warrant and searched the house.
过了一会儿，他们拿着一张伪造的搜查证回来，搜查了房子。
They didn't find explosives or gambling equipment,
他们没有发现炸药或赌博设备，
but they did find a trunk full of pornography, which was illegal at the time, so they arrested her.
但他们确实发现了一个装满色情物品的箱子，这在当时是违法的，所以他们逮捕了她。
The main evidence against her, naturally, was the pornography, but the cops' probable cause was to search for explosives.
当然，对她不利的主要证据是色情作品，但警方可能的原因是搜查爆炸物。
The Court ruled that the evidence had been seized through an illegal search.
法院裁定证据是通过非法搜查取得的。
There was no warrant, and even if there had been one, it probably wouldn't have included the trunk in which they found the porn.
没有搜查令，即使有，也不可能包括他们发现色情片的箱子。
More important, they ruled that this evidence and any evidence seized pursuant to an illegal search cannot be used against a defendant in a trial.
更重要的是，他们裁定，这些证据以及根据非法搜查获得的任何证据不能用于审判被告。
This is called an exclusionary rule, unlawfully obtained evidence is excluded from the trial,
这被称为排除规则，非法获得的证据被排除在审判之外，
and it's sometimes called the “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree,“ possibly because lawyers are better at naming things than historians are.
有时被称为“毒树的果实”，可能是因为律师比历史学家更善于命名事物。
This is incredibly important, especially for cop shows on TV,
这是非常重要的，尤其是对警匪片来说，
but also for you if you happen to have your home searched illegally and the police find evidence of criminal activity.
但对你来说，如果你的家被非法搜查，警察发现了犯罪活动的证据，这也是非常重要的。
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
谢谢，思想泡泡。
So it seems like there are some pretty strong protections against the police searching your home because of Mapp,
所以因为马普这个案子，似乎有一些非常强大的保护措施来防止警察搜查家。
but there are also plenty of exceptions, and no, we're not talking about the Mongols.
但也有很多例外，不，我们说的不是蒙古人。
[Mongoltage] Many of these exceptions involve your car.
(蒙太奇)很多例外都和你的车有关。
In general, the courts have been very lenient when police search your car,
总的来说，法庭在警察搜查你的车的时候很宽容，
probably because very often, when they pull you over, it's because of some kind of moving violation,
可能是因为很多时候，当他们把你拦下来的时候，这是因为某种移动违章行为，
like speeding, which can be probable cause, especially if they think you might be speeding away from a crime.
比如超速，这是可能的原因，尤其是当他们认为你超速是为了逃避犯罪的时候。
The court decisions on this issue are really, really complicated,
法院在这个问题上的裁决非常非常复杂，
but the general rule of thumb is that the police can usually search your car and you if they pull you over, despite what Jay-Z may think.
但一般的经验法则是，如果警察通常可以搜查你的车，就会把你拦在路边，不管Jay-Z怎么想。
Another question that comes up is random traffic stops to check for drunk driving.
另一个问题是随机停车检查酒后驾驶。
A breathalyzer is a type of search, so it would seem that the police should have probable cause to stop you and check to see if you're drunk.
酒精测试是一种搜查，所以看起来警察应该有足够的理由阻止你并检查你是否喝醉了。
But the Courts have ruled that drunk driving checkpoints are okay, assuming they don't disproportionately target people of a specific race, but that's for another episode.
但法院已经裁定，酒后驾车检查站是可以通过的，前提是它们不会不成比例地针对某一特定种族的人，但这是另一件事。
While we're talking about cars and specific groups of people, I should probably add that there's one group of people who don't have the same protections against searches: students.
当我们谈论汽车和特定人群时，或许我应该补充说，有一个群体对于搜查没能得到同样的保护:学生。
Students often think that it's not okay for school officials to search their lockers or their bookbags, but those students are wrong.
学生们经常认为学校官员搜查学生的储物柜或书包是不对的，但这些学生错了。
Most students go to public schools, where the officials are mostly government workers, and are subject to the Bill of Rights.
大多数学生上的是公立学校，那里的官员大多是政府工作人员，他们受到《人权法案》的约束。
The Courts have ruled that students don't have the same protections as other citizens,
法院裁定，学生不享有与其他公民同等的保护，
and that the interests of the state in keeping a safe, drug and weapon-free educational environment trumps their privacy interest.
国家维护安全、无毒品和无武器教育环境的利益高于他们的隐私利益。
Although there are limits to how intrusive these searches can be.
尽管这些搜索的侵入性是有限的。
Drug tests for student athletes?
学生运动员尿检？
Fine.
好的吧。
Strip searches?
脱衣搜索？
Not okay.
不是很合适。
And bee tee dubs, in the same way that a breathalyzer test is a search, so is a drug test,
顺便说一下，就像酒精测试是一种搜索，药物测试也是一样，
or as they say in England, a drugs test, which is probably a more accurate way to say it, because they usually test more than one drug.
或者像英国人说的，药物测试，这可能是更准确的说法，因为他们通常测试不止一种药物。
These can seem pretty intrusive,
这些看起来似乎很有侵犯性，
but the Courts usually rule that they are okay, especially where public safety is concerned.
但法院通常认为它们是可以接受的，尤其是在涉及公共安全的情况下。
The state interest in drug-free schools is a pretty strong one,
国家对无毒品学校是很关注的，
but the cases on student drug tests are really interesting,
但是学生毒品测试的案例真的很有趣，
especially when they get into the issue of whether schools can test all students without probable cause,
尤其是当他们遇到这样的问题:学校是否可以在没有可能原因的情况下测试所有学生，
or only specific groups, like athletes.
或者只测试特定的群体，比如运动员。
If you're really interested, you should look these cases up, but why are you so interested?
如果你真的感兴趣，你应该查一下这些案例，但你为什么这么感兴趣呢?
Maybe you should take a drug test.
也许你应该做个药检。
Or a drugs test.
或者药物测试。
So I'm gonna stop here before I get too deep in the weeds about search and seizures and the Fourth Amendment.
在我深入研究搜查、扣押和宪法第四修正案之前，我就先讲到这里。
There are two important things to remember.
有两件重要的事情需要记住。
The first is that, like all the Constitutional protections of civil liberties, it only applies to government agents.
首先，就像所有宪法对公民自由的保护一样，它只适用于政府机构。
You have no Fourth Amendment protection against your parents searching your room,
你没有宪法第四修正案的保护措施来阻止你的父母搜查你的房间，
unless your parents are police officers and they're on duty, and it's like, official police business.
除非你的父母是警察，他们在值班，就像警察的公务一样。
The second thing to remember is that the protections in the Fourth Amendment are far from absolute.
第二件要记住的事情是，第四修正案中的保护措施远非绝对。
The Amendment itself includes a reasonableness standard, and what is reasonable as well as when warrants are necessary has been, and continues to be, determined by the Courts.
修正案本身包括一个合理的标准，什么是合理的，何时是必要的，已经并将继续由法院决定。
In this case, as with most civil liberties cases,
在这种情况下，就像大多数公民自由案件一样，
the Court's attempt to balance an individual's interest in maintaining her privacy against the state's interest in preventing crime and keeping citizens safe.
法院试图在个人维护隐私的利益与国家预防犯罪和保障公民安全的利益之间取得平衡。
It's not an easy balance, but that's what makes the issue complex and interesting,
这不是一种简单的平衡，但正是这一点让这个问题变得复杂和有趣，
at least to us here at Crash Course, because we're complex and interesting.
至少对我们速成班的学生来说是这样，因为我们既复杂又有趣。
Right, Stan?
是吗，斯坦？
Thanks for watching.
谢谢收看。
See ya next time.
下次见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的。
Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org.
在Voqal.org上了解更多关于他们的使命和计划。
Crash Course was made with the help of these complex and interesting people.
速成班是在这些复杂而有趣的人的帮助下完成的。
Thanks for watching.
感谢观看。
