凯斯诉蒙大拿州案

我的意思是，你知道，我认为这不能仅仅基于某种事情可能出错的概率，或者因为你们确实希望警察留意那些可能危险的事情，即使那并不构成犯罪。

I mean, you know, I don't think it can be based on a probability of, something, going awry or because you do want police to be, you know, on the lookout for things that might be dangerous even if it's not crime or criminal.

当然。

Certainly.

但法院一直强调主观意图。

But the court has always said subjective intent.

所以，作为一名警察、第一响应者，甚至普通公民，你可能担心屋内发生了什么异常情况，但即便在你刚刚描述的这种情境下，也可能存在无害的解释，首席大法官先生。

So you might well be concerned as an officer or a first responder or even an ordinary citizen that some that something's going wrong inside the house, but there could also be innocuous explanations even in the scenario that that, you just, sketched out, mister chief justice.

在卡瓦诺大法官在《卡内利亚案》协同意见中所描绘的许多情境中也是如此。

In a lot of the scenarios that justice Kavanaugh similarly sketched out in his concurrence in Canelia.

这种情况可能朝任何一方发展。

It could tack either way.

但在这些情境中，报告——尤其是来自邻居或亲属的报告——通常会包含大量信息，说明为什么这种行为不符合常态，为什么这很奇怪。

But oftentimes in those scenarios, the report, especially if it's from a neighbor or from a relative, is gonna have a lot of information about why it's uncharacteristic, why this is weird.

这些信息非常有力，可以与佐证证据相结合，以支持进入现场，至少能避免不必要的、毫无必要的危险对峙。

And that is powerful information and can be linked up with corroborating evidence to support going in, and at least it guards against unnecessary and lead needlessly dangerous confrontations.

托马斯大法官？

Justice Thomas?

阿利托大法官？

Justice Alito?

蒙大拿州最高法院使用的措辞和我们在《布里格姆城案》中使用的措辞之间有什么实质区别？

What is the the substantive difference between the words that were used by the Montana Supreme Court and the words that we used in Brigham City?

所以，萨利达大法官，他们说的是客观的、具体的、可说明的事实，基于这些事实，有经验的警官会怀疑公民需要帮助。

So, justice Salida, what they said was objective, specific, and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect that a citizen is in need of help.

这和我们在《布里格姆城案》中的说法有什么不同？

What's the difference between that and what we said in Brigham City?

“有合理依据相信某人遭受严重伤害或即将面临此类伤害”是不同的，因为它没有使用‘怀疑’这个词。

Reasonable basis to believe that someone is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury is different because it doesn't use the word suspicion.

我认为异议意见是正确的，指出下级法院多数意见中的措辞带有《特里案》的色彩。

And I think the dissent is right to say that the or the words used in the majority opinion below sound in Terry.

不仅仅是‘怀疑’这个词的使用，甚至‘具体且可说明的事实’也是如此。

The the not just the use of the word suspicion, but even the specific and articulable facts.

这是典型的特里型语言。

That's Terry type language.

在伴随该标准的脚注中，多数意见进行了类比，认为其与第九巡回法院的紧急情况测试相当，但语言却大不相同。

The in the footnote that accompanies that standard, the majority analogized and said it was comparable to the Ninth Circuit's exigent circumstances test, but the language is quite different.

这并不是索托马约尔大法官所引用的布里格汉姆市案的语言。

And it is not the Brigham City language that justice Sotomayor quoted.

不是。

No.

我还有几个问题。

I I had a couple more questions.

我对你们关于警察为何如此行动的解释感到困惑。

I'm puzzled by your explanation of what why the police did what they did.

在你们看来，他们为何要进入？

Why did they go in in your view?

你为什么认为是主观的？

Why why do I think subjectively?

我认为他们实际上将其视为一种社区看护行为。

I think that they treated it as a to be honest, as a community caretaking exercise.

他们并不认为他打算自杀，但你们忽略了第四修正案关注的是客观事实，而非主观意图。

They didn't think he was they you they didn't think he put aside the fact that Fourth Amendment looks to object to whether it looks to objective facts, not to subjective.

但你的观点是，他们其实并不认为他会自杀。

But your view is they didn't really think he was gonna commit suicide.

他真正想做的其实是自杀，但他不会直接伤害自己。

He what he really wanted to do was to commit suicide he wasn't gonna kill himself directly.

他想通过警察来实现自杀。

He wanted to commit suicide by police.

所以他们说，好吧。

So they said, well, alright.

我们进去吧。

Let's go in.

这样他就会朝我们开枪，然后我们就可以开枪击毙他。

So he he will pull a gun on us, and then we will shoot him.

如果这就是他想要的，那我们就满足他。

And let's if that's what he wants, we're gonna oblige him.

我对您对这里真正发生事情的解释感到完全困惑。

I'm totally puzzled by your explanation of what you think really went on here.

阿利托大法官，我认为这种风险正是现场讨论中所关注的风险。

Justice Alito, I think that that risk is the risk that was focused on in the on the scene deliberations.

我再引用一次帕沙警长的话。

I'll just quote, again, sergeant Pasha.

他一直有自杀倾向，但一直没行动，不过有好几次他试图让我们帮他完成。

He's been suicidal forever, and he hasn't done it, but there have been several times when he's tried getting us to do it.

后来，帕沙警长说，我担心他可能根本没开枪，因为他做不到，他以前就尝试过‘警察自杀’，还给我们留下了这些东西。

Later on, he's sergeant Pasha says, I'm scared that maybe he didn't actually shoot himself because he can't, and he's tried to commit he's tried suicide by cop before, and he, like, left us all this.

所以我们打算进屋，而他将会朝我们开枪。

So we're gonna go in into the house, and and he's gonna pull a gun on us.

所以这又是一个

So there's a re So

他们是否为了满足他希望通过警察实施自杀的愿望，而让自己面临严重的死亡或身体伤害风险？

they they wanted to oblige him in his desire to have to commit suicide by police and thereby expose themselves to, serious risk of death or, or serious bodily injury?

这就是当时发生的情况吗？

That's what was going on?

大法官，当您观看视频时，在某个时刻，他们开始变得积极起来，准备进入房屋。

Your honor, at a certain point in the v when you watch the vid video, they get sort of ahead of steam, and they're starting to just prep to go in.

当然，他们必须做一些准备，但他们专注于为可能发生的对峙做准备，这种势头持续了四十分钟后最终导致了进入行动。

And they have of course, they have to do some prep, but they are focused on taking the preparations, that they'll need in case he wants to to to shoot it out with them, and and and that kind of momentum leads after forty minutes to the entry.

但再次强调，如果您考虑现场警官对凯斯先生的评估，以及他们认为的严重风险——即他将挑起对峙的风险——

But, again, if you if you consider the on the scene assessment by officers who knew mister Case and and the the risk that they thought was the serious one, it was the risk that he was gonna provoke a confrontation.

我的意思是，所以，所以，所以

I mean so so so

如果我们撰写一份意见书，陈述本案的事实，并说：好吧，此案必须发回蒙大拿州最高法院，以适用《布里格汉姆城》测试，那么警察和培训警察的人会不会说：哇。

If we write a if we write an opinion and we set out the facts of this case and we say, well, it has to go back to the Montana Supreme Court for them to apply the Brigham City test, Will it not be the case that police, those people who instruct police officers are gonna say, wow.

如果最高法院都认为这是一个有争议的案件，必须发回蒙大拿州最高法院，那会怎样？

If the Supreme Court thinks that this is even a close case, it has to be sent back to the Montana Supreme Court.

我们除非真的透过窗户看到那人把枪抵在头上，或者看到地上有尸体，否则永远不知道什么时候可以闯入去阻止某人自杀。

We don't know when you can ever go in and try to prevent somebody from committing suicide unless you literally see through the window the guy's got a gun to his head, or they see a dead body on on the floor.

所以你看。

So look.

我们还是采取安全的做法吧。

Let's do the safe thing.

除非我们有绝对确凿的证据，否则我们绝不闯入。

We're just not going in unless we've got absolutely ironclad proof.

阿利托大法官，有三点。

Justice Alito, three things.

法院在Fisher案中已经表示，不需要绝对确凿的证据。

The court's already said in Fisher, you don't need ironclad proof.

第二点是，在蒙大拿州最高法院的所有大法官中，没有一位法官投票支持基于合理根据标准维持这次搜查，有三位法官明确表示这不符合合理根据。

The second thing is the the of all the supreme court justices on the Montana supreme court, there was not a single justice who voted to uphold this search under a probable cause standard, and three justices said it did not meet probable cause.

最后一点，我再次回到警官自身的评估。

And the and the final thing, I, again, would go to the officer's own assessment.

这是一个不寻常的案件，因为他们掌握了关于他的大量信息，而且不仅仅是认识他。

It is unusual an unusual case because they had so much information about him, and it's not just that they knew him.

其中一名警官是目击证人，曾出现在之前的两起事件中。

One of the officers was a precipient witness, was there at two of the prior incidents.

谢谢。

Thank you.

我明白了。

I get it.

索托马约尔大法官？

Justice Sotomayor?

律师，州法院所适用的标准低于合理怀疑标准。

Counsel, that, the state court is applying a lesser standard than reasonable suspicion.

它援引了自身的先例《洛夫格林案》。

It cited the Love Green, its own precedent, Love Green.

是的。

Yes.

在《洛夫格林》案中，法院将社区看护式拦截描述为最不具侵入性的拦截类别，甚至比特里式拦截的侵入性还低。

And in Love Green, it said, it characterized community caretaking stops as the least intrusive category of stop, even less intrusive than a Terry stop.

而他们正是使用了这一标准。

And that's the standard they're using.

没错，法官大人

That's right, your

。

honor.

但这并不是我们在《布里格姆》案中确立的标准。

And that's not the standard we set in Brigham.

确实不是。

It is not.

而且

And

现在别再试图帮自己脱身了。

Now stop trying to help yourself.

我已经把观点说清楚了。

I've gotten the point out.

对吧？

Right?

好吧。

Alright.

让我来讲第二个观点，那就是停车。

Let me get to the second point, which is Stop.

布里格姆案也指出，进入的方式必须是合理的。

Brigham also said the manner of entry has to be reasonable.

明白吗？

Okay?

这里没有人讨论过的一件事，包括阿利托大法官，就是他是在醉酒状态下这么做的。

The one thing that nobody ever discussed here, including justice Alito, is he does this when he's drunk.

对吗？

Correct?

法官大人，当时的报告称他正在饮酒。

Your honor, the call was that he had been, drinking.

所有这些报警电话中，都没人想过让他自己睡醒酒，是吗？

And all of these calls to the police had been nobody thought of just letting him ride out his drunkness, did they?

没有，法官大人。

No, your honor.

录音里有一段评论。

There's a there's a comment on the tape.

我认为是林斯特德警官提出了一个问题：我们留下他吗？

I believe it's, officer Linstead who poses the question, do we leave him?

但他的意思并不明确。

But it is ambiguous as to what he's connoting.

我

I

好的。

Alright.

现在，他们也没有想到，既然他从未对任何人掏过枪，与其让他自杀身亡，不如派医疗人员进去处理，很多部门在处理自杀案件时都会这么做，不是吗？

Now they also didn't think of instead of death by suicide, since he never pulled a gun onto anybody else, okay, getting medical personnel to go in, which lots of divisions do on suicide cases, don't they?

是的，法官大人。

They do, your honor.

在这里，我想指出，Linstead警官确实问过：我们是否应该安排医疗支援？

Here, I just would note that that officer Linstead still did ask, should we stage medical?

但我认为他们并没有这么做，而且也没有进一步的讨论。

But I don't think that they did that, and there was no further discussion.

这正是关键所在。

That's the point.

是的。

Yeah.

他们根本没有尝试打电话求助。

They didn't try to call.

他们除了没有申请搜查令并强行闯入之外，什么都没做。

They didn't do anything except not get a warrant and break it.

对吗？

Correct?

没错，法官大人。

That's right, your honor.

他们讨论过联系其他人、家人，还有父亲。

They talked about calling, other people, family members, the father.

他们讨论过联系他。

They talked about calling him.

最终，至少从随身摄像头的视频来看，没有。

They ultimately, at least on the body cam videos, there's no.

因此，对于下级法院而言，即使在本案的事实背景下，即使通常当你非常担心有人自杀时，他们却说他没有这个胆量，这仍然是一个真正的问题。

So there's a real question even for the court below whether the entry under the facts of this case, not generally when you're really afraid of a suicide, because they're saying he doesn't have the guts.

这不是一个警察的问题。

It's not one officer.

一群警察似乎在打赌，每个人都说，他想让警察逼他自杀。

A bunch of them were taking it sounded to me like they were taking bets on it, and everybody was saying, he wants suicide by cops.

他不会开枪。

He's not gonna shoot.

他没那个胆量。

He doesn't have the guts.

是的，索托马约尔大法官。

Right, justice Sotomayor.

我想引用异议意见。

I would quote the dissent.

异议意见指出，现场所有警员都表示，这种情况不太需要立即援助，而更可能是对方在等待他们，以便实施‘警察自杀’。

What the dissent says is all the officers on the scene stated that it was unlikely case required immediate aid, but rather was likely lying in wait for them to commit suicide by cop.

那么，根据这些事实，是否符合布里格姆标准，应该由他们来决定，而不是我们？

So they can decide, not us, on these facts whether it meets the Brigham standard?

是的，法官大人。

Yes, your honor.

我们所知道的是，蒙大拿法院使用了不同于合理怀疑的更低标准。

What we do know is that the Montana court used a different standard, lower than reasonable suspicion.

没错。

That's right.

谢谢。

Thank you.

卡根大法官、戈萨奇大法官、卡瓦诺女士、巴雷特先生。

Justice Kagan, justice Gorsuch, missus Kavanaugh, mister Barrett.

一个问题，也许蒙大拿州可以回答这个问题。

One question, and maybe Montana can answer this.

如果不知道，请发表意见。

Weigh in if you don't know.

当有人在电话中将枪上膛并已知其持枪时，派出仅医疗人员是否属于正常做法或最佳实践？

Would it be normal or best practices to send in just medical personnel when someone has cocked a gun over the phone and is known to be armed?

不是的，法官大人。

No, your honor.

我认为在这种情况下，会派遣警察前往现场。

I believe in those circumstances, officers would be called to the scene.

谢谢。

Thanks.

杰克逊大法官？

Justice Jackson?

在这种情况下，您认为是否存在合理理由吗？

In those circumstances, would you think there was probable cause?

撇开本案奇特的细节以及官员们根据您的合理理由标准所知的所有信息，如果我们只考虑女友打电话报警以及他们到达现场时所观察到的情况呢？

Setting aside the quirky detail details of this case and all the stuff the officers knew under your probable cause standard if we just had the girlfriend call and what they observed when they got to the scene?

如果他们实际上收到的是一个电话，不是砰的一声，而是说有一把枪，正如阿利托大法官所暗示的那样，行动已经展开，并且确实存在

If the if they actually I wanna be careful because because if what they actually got was a a call that said, not a pop, but there was a that that there was a a gun, the action is is justice Alito suggested was engaged, and the and there was a

真的吗？

Really?

必须这么详细吗？

It has to be that detailed?

我的意思是，电话里的‘砰’声可能是什么都行。

Well, I mean, a pop could be anything over the phone.

我认为，如果有滑动动作，或者你能听到枪被上膛的声音，情况就不同了。

I think it's different if if there's slide action or you can hear the gun being engaged in some way.

我不想再纠缠这个问题了。

I don't wanna belabor this.

我想我只是想把问题单独拎出来，当然。

I guess I'm just trying to isolate Sure.

自杀式袭警的知情情况，我想弄清楚，在你的标准下，到那时为止的所有情况是否都算数，而你只是说，因为自杀式袭警的情形，我们没有合理根据？

Suicide by cop knowledge and find out whether under your own test, all the stuff up to that point would count, and you're just saying we don't have probable cause because of the suicide by cop scenario?

是的，法官大人。

Yes, your honor.

这是所有关于风险的相反信息。

It's all the information that is countervailing about the risk.

谢谢

Thank

您。

you.

是的，法官大人。

Yes, your honor.

谢谢。

Thank you.

科里根先生？

Mister Corrigan?

首席大法官先生，各位法官阁下，本院应维持下级法院的判决，理由有三。

Mister chief justice, and may it please the court, this court should affirm the judgment below for three reasons.

首先，第四修正案保护的是不合理搜查，而非所有无令状搜查。

First, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all warrantless ones.

制宪者在第四修正案中确立的是合理性传统，而非僵化的令状规则。

The framers enshrine that tradition of reasonableness, not a rigid warrant rule in the Fourth Amendment.

在普通法下，当生命处于危险时，执法人员和普通公民均可根据必要性进入住宅。

At common law, officers and private citizens alike could enter the home as as required by necessity when life was at risk.

原告的主张将彻底颠覆这一结构。

Petitioner's rule would turn that structure upside down.

他要求本院将令状条款中的合理根据要求直接纳入合理性条款本身。

He asked this court to graph the warrant clause's probable cause requirement into the reasonableness clause itself.

这种做法既无文本依据，也无历史基础，更得不到本院有关紧急情况判例的支持。

That move has no basis in text, no footing in history, and no support in this court's exigency precedents.

第二，本院已经为紧急进入设定了客观合理性的标准。

Second, this court has already set the standard for emergency entries at objective reasonableness.

若采纳申请人的观点，本院就必须推翻《布里格汉姆市诉斯图尔特案》的判决，抛弃《密歇根州诉费舍尔案》，并将作为刑事法律中关于有罪信念的典型概念——合理根据——重新塑造为一种全新的、适用于非刑事、非调查性紧急情况的概念。

To adopt petitioner's view, this court would have to overrule the holding in Brigham City v Stewart, discard Michigan v Fisher, and recast probable cause, the classic criminal law concept about belief of guilt, into something entirely new and applicable to noncriminal, noninvestigatory emergencies.

第三，客观合理性标准为紧急援助案件提供了充分的指导和灵活性。

Third, the objective reasonableness standard provides sufficient guidance and flexibility for emergency aid cases.

相反，要求存在危险的合理根据的规则，将迫使执法人员站在垂死之人的门外计算法律门槛，而不是去拯救他的生命。

Conversely, a rule demanding probable cause of peril would force officers to stand outside a dying man's door calculating legal thresholds instead of saving his life.

这并非制宪者所写的内容，也并非本院历来所要求的。

That's not what the framers wrote, and that's not what this court has ever required.

蒙大拿州最高法院适用了宪法和本院判例所要求的规则。

The Montana Supreme Court applied the rule required by the constitution and this court's precedents.

当官员有客观合理的依据相信屋内有人需要立即援助时，可以进入。

Officers may enter when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside needs immediate aid.

这一标准符合文本、历史和常识。

That standard is faithful to text, history, and common sense.

我欢迎法院的提问。

I welcome the court's questions.

蒙大拿最高法院引用了Brigham City案吗？

Did the Montana Supreme Court cite Brigham City?

它引用了自身的判例，并依赖了Camellia案，而Camellia案又依赖了Brigham City案。

It cited its own case law, and it cited it relied on Camellia, which which relied on Brigham City.

所以

So

但你们和原告似乎对是否适用了这一标准存在分歧。

But there seems to be a disagreement between you and petitioner as to whether or not that standard was applied.

它适用了Brigham City案的标准。

It it applied the Brigham City standard.

它适用了综合情况标准，以判断警察是否有客观合理的依据认为有人在室内需要立即援助。

It it applied the totality of the circumstances about whether officers had an objectively reasonable basis that someone knee inside needed immediate aid.

因此，它适用了布里格汉姆市案的表述，它适用了布里格汉姆市案的措辞。

And so it it applied it applied the words of it applied the words of Brigham City.

不过，如果我们对标准不确定并确立了新标准，难道我们通常不是应该发回重审吗？

Isn't it our normal practice, though, if if we're not certain about the standard and we state a new standard, that we send it back?

是的，法官大人，在某些情况下是这样。

Yes, your honor, in some instances.

但我认为蒙大拿最高法院在此案中适用的标准非常明确。

But I think it's very clear what standard the Montana Supreme Court applied here.

而且，无论本院确立何种标准，本案的事实都特别有力地表明，警察有客观合理的依据相信凯斯先生需要立即援助。

And the facts are particularly strong that whatever standard this court lays down, the facts here satisfy it that the that the officers here had an objectively reasonable basis for for believing mister Case needed immediate aid.

您认为澄清一下所适用的标准是什么会有帮助吗？我是说，如果关于所适用的标准存在一些模糊之处的话。

Would it be helpful, do you think, to clarify I mean, if there's some ambiguity about what the standard was that was applied.

所以我们并不关心那个。

So we don't care about that.

好吗？

Okay?

这正是我们在Brigham City案中所说的。

It's it's what we said in Brigham City.

然后将这一标准适用于这些事实，我们其实不必这样做。

And then apply that standard to these facts, we don't have to.

我们可以发回重审。

We could send it back.

但为了给下级法院提供指导，避免混淆，使用一组具体的事实会有帮助吗？

But would it help to provide guidance to confuse lower courts for us to use a concrete set of facts

当然有。

to Absolutely.

解释一下这是什么意思。

Explain what that means.

当然有，Gorshed大法官。

Absolutely, justice Gorshed.

这是警察每天都会面对的情况。

This is a scenario that officers face every day.

紧急救助情形非常常见。

Emergency aid scenarios are very common.

无论是像本案这样的自杀来电，还是关于失踪老人的来电，或是像布里格姆城或费舍尔那样的混合情形。

Whether it's a suicide call, like in this case, a call of an elderly individual who's who's missing or a hybrid scenario like Brigham City or Fisher.

由本院将布里格姆城标准适用于本案的事实，将非常有帮助。

Having this court apply whatever's the Brigham City standard to the facts in this case would be very helpful.

你认为我们有足够的记录来做这件事吗？

And we have a full enough record to do that, you think?

当然。

Absolutely.

好的。

Alright.

那你如何回应对方律师关于‘必要性抗辩’在《法律重述》中比普通法下更为宽松的观点？

And and what do you say to your friend on the other side about the necessity defense being more liberal under the restatement than it was at common law.

我认为在普通法下，对方律师提到了Rex v Cody和Scott案。当你阅读这些案例时，它们都基于合理性分析。

I think at common law my my friend on the other side pointed to the cases of Rex v Cody and Scott When v you read those cases, it's all based on a reasonableness analysis.

在Rex v Cody案中，如果能证明拘束行为出于最佳动机，或必要性明显成立，则该行为即属正当。

In in the Rex v Cody case, the restraining was justified if it had been proved to have been with the best motives or necessity was manifestly proven.

在我看来，这听起来就像一种合理性标准。

To me, that sounds like a reasonableness standard.

现在，关于当时合理性标准的问题在于，在侵权法中，我们直到1837年英国的Vaughan案才完全确立了合理性标准。

Now some of the issue in terms of what the reasonableness standard at the time is that we don't, in tort law, we don't get the full reasonableness standard until 1837 in the Vaughan case in England.

但库克在十六世纪就已论述将理性法则应用于普通法的合理性问题。

But Cook is writing in the in the in the sixteenth century about applying the law of reason to the reasonableness of the common law.

因此，在当时陪审团和法官的裁决中，‘普通人’和‘合理性’的概念已深深融入英国普通法和这里的普通法，当然也在第四修正案的文本中体现出来。

And so implicit in jury and judicial verdicts at the time, the concept of the ordinary person and reasonableness is baked into the the common law in England and the common law here and, of course, textually in the Fourth Amendment.

蒙大拿州是否遵循《重述》？

Does Montana follow the restatement?

我们遵循《第二次重述》，法官大人。

We follow the second restatement, your honor.

律师，

Counsel,

我们把这称为紧急情况，但有很多事情看起来并不像紧急情况。

we talk about this as an emergency situation, but there's a lot going on that doesn't look like an emergency.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，他们到了之后，到处走了一会儿，然后呢？

I mean, they get there, and they're walking around for a while, then they what?

他们叫老板下来？

They get the boss to come down?

我的意思是，他们叫了其他人来，但人还在那里，然后又去拿了一个防暴盾。

I mean, they call for somebody else, and they're still there, and then they go get a body shield.

我的意思是，这完全没有那种‘我们必须马上冲进去’的紧迫氛围。

I mean, it it doesn't have the atmosphere of, you know, we've got to get in there right away.

我不禁怀疑，这是否会削弱他们拥有充分正当理由的说法。

And I wonder if that detracts from the idea that they had sufficient justification.

特别是正如丽莎所说，如果警察进来，紧急情况才会出现，那时就会产生警察导致自杀的问题。

And particularly since it as Lisa has said, the the emergency would come in if the officers came in, and then he'd have the question of, suicide by police.

首席大法官先生，我当然同意，如果他们等待太久，这会削弱紧急情况的成立。

Well, mister chief justice, I would certainly agree that at some point, if they did wait too long, that would that would, cut against an emergency.

但在这个案件中，我认为时间线非常重要。

But in this case, I think the timeline is very important.

警察于晚上9点14分到达现场。

Officers arrive on the scene at 09:14PM.

他的前女友于9点18分到达。

His ex girlfriend arrives at 09:18.

他们进行了敲门并宣告。

They do a knock and announce.

他们多次敲门，并在接下来的二十分钟里努力核实她向他们提供的信息。

They knock several times, and they spend the next twenty minutes, trying to verify the facts that she communicated to them in this case.

到了晚上9点34分。

And it's at 09:34 p.

嗯。

M.

当他们在搜查房屋外部时，用手电筒照进窗户发现了自杀笔记。

That as they're doing the search of the outside of the house that they identify the suicide note when they flash their flashlights through the window.

因此，他们花了大约二十分钟来核实她向他们传达的事实。

And so they spent about twenty minutes trying to verify the facts that were communicated to them.

但我确实认为，警察自杀的可能性要求他们采取更多的谨慎措施。

And what I and I do think, though, that the possibility of suicide by cop counseled additional caution on their part.

这一点在执法记录仪中可以看到。

That and you see this on the body cam.

当然，他们担心警察自杀这一情况。

Of course, they are worried about the concept of about the instance of suicide by cop.

但正因如此，他们才进行额外的调查：绕着房屋外侧行走，朝敞开的窗户大喊，给凯斯先生每一次机会，让他表明自己还活着、在屋里——而他却没有这样做。

But that's why they're doing the additional investigation of walking around the outside of the house, yelling into an open window, giving mister Case every every, opportunity to let them know that he is alive and inside, which he didn't do.

蒙大拿州总检察长

General Does Montana

我的意思是，我觉得这个案件的判例法中存在一些混乱，我认为本案中的标准有些草率。

have I mean, it seems to me that there's some confusion in the case law, I mean, I think there was some sloppiness in the standard in this case.

蒙大拿州是否有独立的社区看护例外，或者它所谓的社区看护例外实际上等同于我们从《布里格姆城案》中得出的紧急救助条款？

Does Montana have some separate community caretaker exception or something that it calls a community caretaker exception that's really equivalent to our emergency aid section from Brigham City?

是的，巴雷特大法官。

Yes, justice Barrett.

我认为，当蒙大拿州最高法院讨论社区看护例外时，他们实际上是将《布里格姆城案》的内容融合进去了。

I I think that's when when the Montana Supreme Court discusses the community caretaking exception, think I they're folding in Brigham City.

我同意标准上存在一些混淆，但这属于为挽救生命而采取的紧急情况例外。

There was some confusion, I agree, in the standard, but it is an it's it's an exigent circumstance, exception to save human life.

我认为这本质上就是他们所做的。

And I think that's essentially what they did.

好的。

Okay.

我的意思是，他们作为州法问题，想怎么称呼都可以，但你会同意，我们已经否定了这种所谓的例外。

I mean, they're free to call it as a matter of state law, guess, whatever they wanna call it, but you would agree that there is no such strand that we've rejected that.

我们在卡内利亚案中已经否定了这一点。

We've rejected it in Canelia.

今天已经很长了。

It's been a long day.

但你们所要求的只是紧急救助例外和布里格姆城案的标准，你们并没有说存在另一个更宽松的标准。

But that the emergency aid exception and the standard from Brigham City is all you're asking for, and you're not saying that there's some yet another looser standard.

没错。

That's correct.

我们完全符合布里格姆城案和卡内利亚案的规定。

We are entirely consistent with Brigham City and and Coniglia.

我们没有要求超出这些内容。

We're not asking for anything beyond that.

关于这一点，而且

And and on that And

他们的引证，抱歉。

their cite I'm sorry.

他们引用的Lovedwin案，我们难道就忽略他们所说的‘低于合理怀疑’这一点吗？

And their citation to Lovedwin, we just ignore where they said it was less than reasonable suspicion?

法院确实使用了不精确的措辞。

Well, the court is admittedly, using imprecise language.

我认为重要的是，法院正在运用整体情况标准，并确保搜查的范围和方式是合理的。

What I think is what's important is that the court is applying the totality of the circumstances, and it's making sure the scope and manner of the search is reasonable.

当然，正如我的同事刚才所指出的，以及法院在提问时所提到的，法院有时会使用一些与‘合理怀疑’这一具体适用标准相类似的措辞。

And, of course, as was, as my friend was up here and the court was asking questions, pointed out that the court does use some language mirroring at times in the in sort of the the the more specific application of the test that mirrors reasonable suspicion.

但法院在TLO案和特殊需求案件中也曾这样做过。

But this court has done that in TLO and the special needs cases.

因此，法院所要做的，是确保搜查的范围和方式是合理的，并权衡所涉及的隐私利益。

And so what the court is what the court is looking to do is make sure that the scope and manner of the search are reasonable and balancing the privacy interests at stake.

我实际上没有看到任何案例讨论过这一搜查方式的合理性。

I actually don't see any of them addressing the reasonableness of the manner in which this occurred.

我指出了相关的一些内容。

And I pointed to things.

巴雷特大法官说得对。

Justice Barrett was right.

你不会派医护人员进入一个有武装人员的房间，但你会叫医护人员打电话或与有自杀倾向的人通话。

You're not gonna send medical personnel into a room with an armed person, but you do call medical personnel to make calls or to to talk to someone who's suicidal on the phone.

这种情况经常发生。

It happens quite often.

他们可以这么做。

They could do that.

现在，

Now as

你可以把扩音器放在外面。

You can put a megaphone out there.

我要指出的是，这里的紧急情况是，他们在进入后不久就呼叫了医护人员，而他已经中弹。

I I will I will point out the time exigency here is that they they did call medical personnel one case after the entry and he had been shot.

但这里的警察

But the officers here

是的。

Yes.

在他中枪之后。

After he had been shot.

当他们有很大把握知道他意图通过警察自杀时。

When they had a great probability of knowing that he was seeking to be There's suicide by cop.

没有迹象表明急救人员能够劝说凯斯先生。

There's no indication that that EMTs would be able to talk down mister Case.

事实上，认识凯斯三十年的萨瑟警长作证说，根据以往事件，他原本认为自己能劝说凯斯，让他离开房屋。

In fact, chief Sather, who had known Case for thirty years, testified that based on prior incidents, he actually thought that he could talk Case down and get him out of the house.

直到他们收到可靠信息，确认凯斯确实中了枪，警长才赶到并说：我们必须进去。

It was only after they received the reliable indicia that Case had actually suffered a gunshot wound that the chief arrives and says, we have to go in.

我理解得对吗？

Am am I right?

而且为了回到你刚才提到的地方，关于巴雷特大法官，你并没有将布里格姆市的标准与我们的特里拦截标准等同起来。

And just to go back to where you ended, with justice Barrett, that you're not equating the city of Brigham standard with our Terry stop standard.

对。

Correct.

你觉得这两者是两回事吗？

You you think that those are two different things?

我认为它们是两回事。

I think they're two different things.

好的。

Okay.

至于盐湖城标准与合理根据标准之间的区别，你的立场是盐湖城标准更宽松，还是只是认为它不同？

And as to the difference between the city of Brigham standard and the probable cause standard, is your position that the city of Brigham standard is laxer, or is your position that it's just different?

我认为它更具灵活性，而且它回答的是一个不同的问题。

I think it's more flexible, and I think it answers a different question.

所以，正如法院在我方律师刚才发言时所认识到的，合理根据不仅仅关乎达到某个具体门槛。

So as as the court recognized when my when my friend was up here earlier, it's probable cause isn't just about reaching a specific threshold.

它与犯罪行为直接相关。

It's it's fixed to criminality.

但客观合理性标准认为，根据所有情况，一名警官采取特定行动是否合理？

But objective reasonableness says, given the totality of the circumstances, would an officer taking a specific action be reasonable?

我认为一种理解方式是，合理根据是关于是否达到了某种证据标准的单一判断，而客观合理性——如本案所示——则可能是一种渐进式的分析。

And and I think one way to think of it might be probable cause is a single determination about whether a quantum of proof has been satisfied, but objective reasonableness, as in this case, can be a progressive analysis.

我的意思是，当警官们

And what I mean by that is when officers

这对我有帮助，我认为，因为这涉及太多术语了。

It would help me, I think, because that's a lot of words.

但是，这两者之间的差距在哪里？

And, but, like, what's the what's what's the case in the gap between the two?

比如，什么情况下警察没有合理根据，却仍能满足布里格汉姆市标准？

Like, what is it where a police officer would not have probable cause but can satisfy the Brigham City standard?

你所说的这类情况具体指什么？

What are the kinds of things you're talking about?

所以我认为，如果以本案为例，去掉卡斯先生的前科记录——实际上我们认为，这反而支持了警官的合理判断——或者他们没有获得其他可靠的迹象。

So I think if you take this particular case and subtract perhaps mister Case's history, which which we actually think I actually think, supports the officer's reasonable determination, or if they had not, obtained the other reliable indicia.

所以，如果凯斯的前女友给他打了电话，她听到了枪机上膛的声音，还听到了她认为是枪声的响动，警察赶到后敲门，却得不到任何回应，而且他们尚未发现自杀笔记——那可能在他楼上的房间里。

So if if if Case's ex girlfriend had called him, she had heard the cocking of the gun, heard what she thought to be a gunshot, police arrive, they knock on the door, they they don't receive any response, but they hadn't found this hadn't been able to see the suicide note, which might have been upstairs with him.

他们也没有看到啤酒罐或空的枪套。

They hadn't seen the beer cans or the empty paddle holster.

我认为这是一次更接近的判断，但我们认为这仍然是客观上合理的。

I think that's a much closer call, but we think that's still objectively reasonable.

我想指出，对方的朋友们认为，即使本案中证据非常充分，也不足以构成合理根据。

And I would point out that our friends on the other side believe that even the very strong facts in this case don't satisfy probable cause.

因此，我认为，如果法院根据阿利托大法官之前的问题，认定本案的事实不足以构成合理根据，这将对执法部门产生非常不利的长远影响。

And so I think if the court, to justice Alito's questioning earlier, if the court were to determine that the facts in this case do not satisfy probable cause, that is going to have, very, detrimental effects down the road for law enforcement.

谢谢。

Thank you.

他们说这些证据不构成合理根据，是因为他们降低了标准。

They say they don't satisfy probable cause because they're reducing.

这正是我最后问他问题的核心：如果没有‘以自杀方式逼警察开枪’这一信息，你们认为还能成立吗？

That was my question to him at the end, which is without the suicide by cop information, do you think we get there?

我以为他暗示我们确实如此，但真正让卡斯先生实际自杀的可能性更低、客观上更不可能的原因，是警察还掌握了这些额外信息。

I thought he suggested we did, but it was the fact that the cops also had this additional information that made it less likely or objectively less likely that mister Case would actually commit suicide.

我认为有必要将‘以警殉自杀’这一情况放在上下文中理解。

Well, I I think it's important to put the suicide by cop in context.

所以，现场发生的一些情况，我认为，帕沙警长明显对‘以警殉自杀’非常担忧。

So some of what's happening at the scene, I think, is cop talk of sergeant Pasha is clearly very concerned about suicide by cop.

‘以警殉自杀’这个说法最初是在卡斯与前女友通话时提出的，当时他说：‘我要自杀。’

The the context of suicide by cop came first came up when Case was on the phone with his ex girlfriend, and and he says, I'm gonna kill myself.

她回应说：‘如果你这么威胁，我不得不报警。’

And she responds, well, if you if you threaten that, I'm gonna have to call the police.

她说：‘我要……’或者他说：‘我会和他拼个你死我活。’

And she says, I'm gonna or he says, I'll shoot it out with him.

萨瑟警长对帕沙警长关于这一言论的担忧回应说，他没有这个胆量。

Chief Sather responds to sergeant Pasha's concern about that comment by saying he doesn't have the guts.

因此，我认为蒙大拿最高法院的异议意见是错误的，它声称所有警员都相信这一点。

So I think the the dissent is incorrect at the Montana Supreme Court to say all the officers believed.

我们的观点是，警察自杀确实是一种可能性，但警察们根据Case自2015年以来不断升级的暴力历史以及十八个月前的那起事件，排除了这种可能性。

And our point is is certainly suicide by cop was a possibility, but that was I think the officers ruled that out based on his escalating history of violence going back to 2015 and the incident that was eighteen months earlier.

尤其是当他们找到那张纸条后，萨瑟警长确信这次他真的伤害了自己。

And particularly once they found the note, chief Sather is convinced that he actually has hurt himself this time.

就合理性标准而言，我们承认客观合理性是一个简单的标准，但当法院在权衡隐私利益与紧急情况的性质时，这个标准可能并不容易应用。

In in terms of the test of reasonableness, we we admit that a reasonableness, objective reasonableness, is an easy test, but it may not be an easy rubric to always apply where where the court is taking the privacy interest versus the nature of the exigency.

但我认为法院在巴恩斯案中正是这样做的。

But I think the court just did this in Barnes.

法院也承认，这是一个事实密集的混乱局面，需要仔细关注事实和情境，包括导致关键时刻的前因后果。

And the court admitted that it's a fact bound morass that demands careful attention to the facts and circumstances, including the facts and circumstances leading up to the climactic moment.

法院必须考虑所有相关情境。

And the court has to consider all relevant circumstances.

我认为，在讨论这一情境的最高点——即人类生命与家庭神圣性之间的冲突时，过度使用武力的语境非常贴切。

And I think that the excessive force context makes a lot of sense here when we're talking about, at its apex in this context, the sanctity of human life versus the sanctity of the home.

而过度使用武力的语境还涉及两个强烈竞争的利益：警察的安全与使用致命武力之间的权衡。

And the excessive force context also involves two two strong competing interests of the safety of the officer versus the use of deadly force.

巴恩斯案的逻辑在这里是成立的。

And the logic of Barnes makes sense here.

将其应用在这里也是合理的。

The application of it makes sense.

关于布里格姆市案，以及所提到的混合情形，我认为布里格姆市案及其他涉及潜在犯罪活动的案例都承认，先遣人员首先首先是救援人员。

And in terms of Brigham City, in terms of hybrid scenarios that have been brought up, I think that Brigham City and other cases that involve underlying criminal activity recognize though that first responders are first responders first.

当他们抵达紧急现场时，并不一定关心潜在的犯罪行为。

When they arrive on the scene of an emergency, they're not necessarily concerned about underlying crime.

当他们响应有人呼救时，首要任务是向需要帮助的人提供援助。

Their first instance when they respond to someone yelling help is to provide an aid to someone in need.

他们可以稍后再考虑逮捕某人或处理其他犯罪活动。

They can worry about arresting someone for a crime or worry or other criminal activity later on.

我们将混合案件与所有其他紧急情况同等对待。

We treat hybrid cases the same as all other exigencies.

重要的是要记住，正如我向卡根大法官所阐述的，客观合理性标准允许进行渐进式分析。

And what's important to remember is, as I was articulating to Justice Kagan, is the objective reasonableness standard allows a progressive analysis.

因此，当警察到达并进行敲门宣告时，他们可能无法立即客观合理地直接进入前门。

So when the officers arrive and do a knock and announce, they may not have a it may not be objectively reasonable right away for them to go through the front door.

但这允许他们绕到房屋附属区域，通过敞开的窗户呼喊，采取逐步措施提醒当事人，给予他们充分回应的机会，并让他们知道警察是来提供帮助的。

But it allows them to go around the curtilage, to yell through an open window, to take progressive steps to alert the individual and give them every opportunity to respond and let them know that they are okay.

我认为，合理根据标准并未提供足够的灵活性，也无法区分进入门内和砸碎窗户之间的不同。

And I don't think that probable cause allows that sufficient flexibility and doesn't differentiate between going through a door and breaking down a window.

而巴恩斯标准和合理性标准则能区分不同情境：例如，合理地给嫌疑人戴上手铐、扑倒嫌疑人，或使用致命武力之间的区别。

Whereas the barn standard and the and the reasonableness standard differentiates between the facts that make it reasonable to handcuff a suspect versus to tackle a suspect or what or to use deadly force.

因此，我们认为蒙大拿州最高法院正确地适用了本院在《布里格姆城案》中确立的测试标准。

And that's why we think that the Montana Supreme Court appropriately applied this court's set test in Brigham City.

本院在《布里格姆城案》和《费舍尔案》中明确表示：当警察有客观合理依据相信屋内有人急需援助时，可以进入。

This court meant what it said in Brigham City, meant what it said in Fisher, that officers may enter when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside is in need of immediate aid.

谢谢，律师。

Thank you, counsel.

托马斯大法官？

Justice Thomas?

斯卡利亚大法官？

Justice Scalia?

律师，关于进入住宅的案件，我们一直强调，除非存在公认的例外情况，否则不得在无搜查令的情况下进入他人住宅。

Counsel, our entry into the home cases, and it's been paramount that a person's home, we don't enter without a warrant except in recognized exceptions.

我理解那种本能：我们不希望真正需要帮助的人因警察未能迅速进入而受困，但我们总是在权衡各种利益，对吧？

And I understand the instinct that says that we don't want someone in real need not to have the police enter quickly, but we're always balancing interests, aren't we?

而对证据要求不足，也会导致生命损失。

And not requiring enough proof also cost cost lives.

原告援引报告指出，患有严重精神疾病的人在与警察接触时，被枪杀的可能性高出16倍。

Petitioner cites reports that people with serious mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by police during a police encounter.

一项调查发现，在两年期间至少有178起案件，警方接到的是求助电话而非犯罪报告（如911报警或心理状态检查），却开枪击毙了本应被协助的人。

An investigation found at least a 178 cases in a two year period where calls for help, not a crime, like a 911 call or a wellness check, resulted in the police shooting and killing the people they were called on to assist.

这是一场微妙的平衡，但我们难道不应确保下级法院至少遵循了正确的标准吗？

It's a fine balance, but shouldn't we make sure that the courts below are at least following the right standard?

因此，您一直告诉我们，尽管该州使用的术语听起来与‘合理怀疑’非常相似，尽管有Lovegrin案明确指出其标准低于‘特里拦截’，但澄清我们所确立的标准仍有其价值。

So I You keep telling us that that this state is, despite using words that sound very similar to reasonable suspicion, despite a case, Lovegrin, that says it's less than a Terry stop, I mean, there's some value in clarifying what we have said the standard is.

如果您要求我们描述证明的标准，听起来您是希望我们接受 Solicitor General 的说法。

If you're asking us to describe what the quantum of proof, sounds like you wanted us to to accept what the, solicitor general is saying.

只要有某种可能性就足够了。

Some possibility is enough.

但这从来都不是标准。

But that's never been the standard.

标准是合理的怀疑、合理的信念，而不是可能的信念。

It's a reasonable suspicion reasonable belief, not a probable belief.

因此，我同意法院应当予以澄清，我认为法院可以明确指出，它在《Brigham City》案和《Fisher》案中的意思就是：客观合理的依据就是标准。

So I agree that clarification from the court, and I think the court can clarify that it meant what it said in Brigham City, it meant what it said in Fisher, and that an objectively reasonable basis is what it is.

那不是合理的怀疑吗？

And that not reasonable suspicion?

这并不一定是合理的怀疑。

It's it's not necessarily reasonable suspicion.

我认为在某些情况下是符合的。

I think in some cases qualify.

在某些情况下，这一标准可能看起来像合理怀疑。

It's some it's in some cases, the standard can look like reasonable suspicion.

在某些情况下，灵活性使其更像可能原因。

And in some cases, the flexibility makes it look more like probable cause.

但我们现在讨论的是紧急情况的确信程度。

But there's where we're getting to the degree of certainty of the exigency.

它需要

It takes it

但你希望它是合理怀疑吗？

But you want it to be reasonable suspicion?

客观合理性标准最忠实于宪法的文本、历史和传统。

Well, the objective reasonableness standard is the most faithful to the text, history, and tradition of the constitution.

如果必须在二选一中做出选择，我们会选择合理怀疑而非可能原因。

If given a binary choice, we would take reasonable suspicion over probable cause.

但客观合理性更为灵活，也更忠实于文本，它能涵盖此类情况或其他存在疑虑、不确定个人是否需要帮助的情形。

But objective reasonableness is much more flexible and and faithful to the text, and it accounts for situations, like this one or others where there is a there is some doubt as to whether an individual is in need.

所以我们干脆直接采用下级法院的说法。

So we might as well just say what the court below said.

这比樱桃还少

It's less than a cherry

停下。

stop.

我认为应该参考《费舍尔案》中的表述，法院指出，警察当然不会拥有完美信息，但这并不意味着他们应该对潜在的危险情况置之不理。

Well, I think I'd look to the language in Fisher where the court says officers, of course, are going to have less than perfect information, but that doesn't mean they should walk away from potentially dangerous situations.

我们只是要求他们运用常识。

And all we're asking is that they use their common sense.

警察以及审查法院完全有能力判断事实是否站不住脚，以及客观合理的信念是否不存在。

Officers, as well as reviewing courts, are more than capable of figuring out when the facts don't add up and when an objectively reasonable belief doesn't exist.

我认为，法院可以将它所阐明的任何标准应用于本案的事实，从而为下级法院提供充分的指导。

And I think, I'd go back to this court could apply whatever standard it articulates to the facts in this case to provide ample guidance to lower courts.

凯女士？

Missus Kay?

我觉得我有点困惑，律师，因为我认为您之前告诉我，布里格姆城标准与特里拦截标准不同，而您并没有要求采用后者。

I think I'm confused, general, because I thought you told me that the city of Brigham standard is not the same as the Terry stop standard, and then you were not asking for the latter.

不是的。

It it it's not.

并非在所有情况下都是如此。

It's not in all cases.

布里格姆城标准就是布里格姆城标准。

The Brigham City standard is the Brigham City standard.

就确定性的程度而言，它可能在合理根据和合理怀疑之间波动。

In terms of the degree of certainty, it may it can vacillate between probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

好的。

Okay.

文本的复杂性远不止如此。

The text is just more complex than that.

谢谢。

Thank you.

巴雷特夫人？

Missus Barret?

您最好还是坚持使用布里格姆市的标准。

You might be better off just sticking with Brigham City.

我想您想表达的是，在某些情况下，布里格姆市意义上的合理怀疑或客观合理性可能会得出相同的结果。

I think what you're maybe what you're saying is that in some circumstances, reasonable suspicion or objective reasonableness in the Brigham City sense might yield the same result.

就像有时适用布里格姆市标准和可能原因——无论在这个语境中它意味着什么——也可能得出相同的结果。

Just like sometimes applying Brigham City and probable cause, whatever it might mean in this context might yield the same result.

但您真的在说，我们应该采取与布里格姆市案不同的做法，或者通过说‘客观合理依据，但可能是合理怀疑’来混淆视听吗？

But are you really saying that we should do something different than in Brigham City or or muddy the waters by saying, oh, you know, objectively reasonable basis, but could be reasonable suspicion.

您在第一部分、即前面的说法上是正确的。

You're you're correct on on the first part, on your on the former.

我们并没有说布里格姆市案意味着合理怀疑。

We are not saying that they should've that the court that Brigham City means reasonable suspicion.

我们想说的是，在某些情况下，正如您所说，巴雷特大法官，它可能得出类似合理怀疑的结果，就像它也可能得出类似可能原因的结果。

What what what we're saying is in some instances, it could've, know, as you said, justice Barrett, yield a result like reasonable suspicion just like it could yield a result like probable.

但我们不需要这么说。

But we don't need to say that.

我认为这会让人困惑。

I think that would be confusing.

我认为我们只需说‘Brigham City案中的客观合理依据’，然后句号结束。

I think we could just say Brigham City, objectively reasonable basis to believe, and put a period

就这样。

on that.

我同意，巴雷特大法官。

I I agree, justice Barrett.

好的。

Okay.

谢谢。

Thanks.

杰克逊大法官。

Justice Jackson.

谢谢，律师。

Thank you, counsel.

科贝先生？

Mister Kobe?

首席大法官阁下，各位大法官，您好。

Mister chief justice, and may it please the court.

本院应坚持《布里格汉姆城案》所确立的紧急救助进入的客观合理性标准，而非采纳原告所谓的危险可能性标准。

This court should adhere to the objective reasonableness standard for emergency aid entries set out in Brigham City rather than require what petitioner calls probable cause of a danger.

原告的理论在《第四修正案》的文本中毫无依据，该修正案将可能性理由与搜查令挂钩，而非泛泛地适用于所有搜查行为。

Petitioner's theory has no basis in the Fourth Amendment's text, which links probable cause to warrants, not to searches in general.

历史也不支持原告的理论。

History doesn't support petitioner's theory either.

制宪者制定《第四修正案》是为了防范过度积极的刑事调查，而非阻碍执法人员为有需要的人提供救命援助。

The framers adopted the Fourth Amendment to guard against overzealous criminal investigation, not to hamstring officers from providing lifesaving aid to people in need.

然而，原告的规则将使政府官员更难帮助处于危机中的人群，从家庭暴力受害者到跌倒后无法起身的老年人。

Yet petitioner's rule would make it harder for government officials to help people in crisis from victims of domestic violence to older people who have fallen and can't get up.

本院应当重申，紧急救助进入的合理性应通过灵活的判断来评估，该判断需同时考虑危险的严重性及其发生的可能性。

This court should instead reaffirm that emergency aid entries are assessed for reasonableness, a flexible determination that accounts for both the severity of a danger and its likelihood.

各州始终可以制定高于这一宪法最低标准的规则，但第四修正案并不要求紧急进入时必须有对危险的合理根据。

States are always free to craft their own rules above that constitutional floor, but the Fourth Amendment does not categorically require probable cause of a danger for an emergency entry.

我欢迎法院的提问。

I welcome the court's questions.

我们应当在此适用这一规则，还是发回重审？

Should we apply this rule here or send it back?

我们认为，您应当在此适用这一规则。

We think you should apply this rule here.

我认为，蒙大拿州最高法院在其标准中使用了‘怀疑’一词，这引发了一些疑问。

I I think there has been some question about, the Montana Supreme Court's use of the word suspect in its test.

但我恳请本院不要像解读法律条文那样解读判决，尤其是因为该判决其他地方明确指出，其标准在很大程度上与第九巡回法院的标准一致，而后者使用的是‘客观合理依据相信’的表述。

But I would urge this court not to read a decision like a statute, especially because elsewhere in the decision, the Montana Supreme Court said that it test its test largely mirrored the Ninth Circuit's test, which uses the objectively reasonable basis for believing language.

而且，由于判决中其他地方使用了除‘怀疑’之外的其他动词，我认为，参见PETAP第14页脚注5，他们提到存在客观合理依据认定存在危险。

And because it used other verbs elsewhere besides suspect, I think, PETAP 14 a footnote five, they say there was an objectively reasonable basis for finding a danger.

因此，我建议不要仅仅基于‘suspect’这个词或对Lovebrand的煽动而将案件发回重审。

So I I would avoid, sending it back just on the basis of that word suspect or incitation to Lovebrand.

当他们回应异议意见中指责他们使用了合理怀疑时，却从未说过‘我们没有’。

Dissent when they, when they address the dissent's, accusation that they were using reasonable suspicion, nowhere did they say, we're not.

那本是最简单不过的事。

Would have been the easiest thing to do.

我们并没有使用合理怀疑。

We're not using reasonable suspicion.

相反，他们说，我们不必使用，因为这与逮捕的目的不同。

Instead, they said, we don't have to because it's more, it's a different purpose than an arrest.

在我看来，这并不是否认。

It seems to me that that's not a disavow.

我理解他们的意思是某种程度上否定了他们正在适用合理怀疑标准。

I do read them to sort of disavow that they're applying a reasonable suspicion.

不。

No.

但说我们并没有给予开放许可，但他们也没有否认这一点。

But said we're not giving open license, but they didn't disavow it.

我认为，即使你不同意我的观点，不将此案发回的理由正是阿尔ito大法官 earlier 所阐述的：如果你给执法人员和下级法院一种印象，认为本案的事实是否符合《布里格汉姆城》测试存在任何疑问，我认为这将导致大量混乱，并让执法人员担心他们无法依据自己认为应有的信息采取进入行动。

I I think even if you disagree with me about that, the reason not to send it back is the one that justice Alito articulated earlier, which is if you give sort of officers and lower courts the impression that there is, any doubt about whether the facts here satisfy the Brigham City test, I think that's going to lead to a lot of confusion and a lot of concern that officers can't make entries based on the type of information that they would think they

可以。

could.

我们在这里适用这一标准，是否忽略了他们本不应进入的相反因素？

We apply it here, are we ignoring the countervailing factors of why they shouldn't have gone in?

我们有多个警官在录像中说，他没有胆量。

We have a number of officers on tape saying, he has no guts.

他不会自杀。

He won't kill himself.

我们还有其他警官说，他在等待警察逼他自杀。

We have others saying of officers saying, he's waiting for suicide by cops.

警官们完全没有关注尝试与父亲沟通，或呼叫医生，或通过喊话劝他出来，而不是直接进入屋内。

There's no attention paid by the officers to trying the father or to calling a doctor to call out to him, not go into the place.

他们决定直接进入，那我们是否是在纵容一种无限制的借口，说不必考虑更合理的方式或方法进入？

All they decide to do is go in, are we then inviting a carte blanche to say, don't think of more reasonable way or manner to enter?

我不这么认为，索托马约尔大法官。

I don't think so, Justice Sotomayor.

我想指出几点。

I'd point to a couple things.

首先，我建议不要过度依赖录像中的警察言论。

One, I'd avoid, relying too much on the cop talk that's on the tape.

尤其是因为在压制听证会的记录中，有几位警察提供了宣誓证词，称他们主观上担心他确实已经受伤。

Especially because in the record in the JA at the suppression hearing, several of the officers did testify, sworn testimony that that they were subjectively afraid that he had, had had in fact injured himself.

所以这是一个

So this was a situation

这种情况吗？

for that?

他们为此提供了依据吗？

Did they give a basis for that?

我认为那个电话、自杀笔记和空枪套。

I I think the call and the suicide note and the empty holster.

所以我认为这是一个存在多种可能结果的情形。

So I think this is a situation in which there were risks of multiple outcomes.

他们对其中一种结果表示担忧，并不意味着没有客观合理的依据相信其他结果也可能发生。

And the fact that they articulated a concern about one of those outcomes doesn't mean there wasn't also an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the other outcome might have happened as well.

所以我的理解是，你同意蒙大拿州的观点，即在《布里格汉姆城》测试下，确定性的程度可以波动，而你的滑动尺度正是为此服务的。

So I take it that you agree with Montana that the degree of certainty can vacillate under the Brigham City test, and that that's really the work of your sliding scale.

对吗？

Is that right?

我认为是这样的。

I I think that's right.

我想说的是，这并不是说在一种情况下需要合理根据，在另一种情况下则需要合理怀疑。

What I would say is it's not so much, like, in one case, you need probable cause, and in another case, you need reasonable suspicion.

我们的观点只是，不存在一个适用于所有情况的、固定的危险确定性标准。

Our point is just that there is not a fixed prescribed quantum of certainty of danger that needs to apply in all cases.

在一种情况下，执法人员为确保其进入行为合理所需的信息量、信息的可靠性以及信息的佐证程度，可能与另一种情况不同。

The amount of information, the reliability of information, the corroboration of information that an officer would need to make their entry reliable in one instance may not be the same as in another instance.

有哪些关键因素能帮助我们这样表述呢？

Key factors that would it be helpful for us to kinda say that kind of thing?

换句话说，我理解您的滑动尺度本质上是一个与严重性和信息量相关的矩阵。

In other words, you know, I understood your sliding scale to have a matrix essentially that related to the severity and the amount of information.

我认为是这样的。

I think so.

需要明确的是，滑动尺度只是一个比喻。

To be clear, think the sliding scale, you know, it's just a metaphor.

我们并不是说它严格公式化或是一个矩阵之类的东西。

We don't mean it's sort of strictly formulaic or a matrix or anything like that.

只是说这些是相关的考量因素，可以使进入行为变得合理。

Just that these are relevant considerations that can make an entry reasonable.

是的。

Yeah.

说实话，我完全不明白这个滑动尺度的概念。

I don't understand the sliding scale thing at all, I'll be honest.

所以帮我解释一下。

So help me out.

我明白，许多不同的事实可以构成客观合理的依据，对吧？

I understand lots of different facts can lead to an objectively reasonable basis, okay?

而且要将它们全部列出来几乎是不可能的。

And it's almost impossible to catalog them all.

但在另一端，关于严重性，我们曾在布里格姆扬案中提到过，抱歉，应该是布里格姆城。

But on the other end, on the severity, we said in Brigham Young what we meant Brigham City, sorry.

我累了。

I am tired.

必须是对居住者构成严重的伤害风险。

That it has to be a severe risk of harm to the occupant.

我这是在转述，但黑格尔的经典表述是‘生命或肢体’。

I'm paraphrasing, but life or limb is the classic formulation in Blackstone.

严重性就是严重性。

That's that's that's the severity is the severity.

不存在什么渐进尺度。

It doesn't there's no sliding scale.

你不能因为一个倒刺就带上大量证据去处理。

You don't get to go in with lots of evidence of to to to deal with a hangnail.

我完全同意这一点。

I absolutely agree with that.

我的意思是，我们认为渐进尺度的外沿，是由布里格姆城案中所指的严重伤害所界定的。

There's sort of I mean, I think what we would think of for the sliding scale, an outer bound on the sliding scale formed by Brigham City's use of that serious injury.

但并非所有严重伤害都是一样的。

But not all serious injuries are alike.

我们的观点是，根据紧急情况的程度以及所声称伤害的严重性，在某些情况下，执法人员依赖较少或较不可靠的信息可能是合理的。

And our point is that based on the degree of the exigency, the severity of the injury being complained about, it may be reasonable in some instances for officers to rely on less information or less reliable information.

而在其他情况下，依赖这些信息可能是合理的，也可能不合理。

And in other instances, it may be reasonable it may not be reasonable to rely

关于我

on I

我理解。

understand that.

信息。

Information.

所以这就是就是

So that's that's

关于普通法中的必要性，有什么想法吗？

Do any thoughts about the common law of necessity?

是的。

Yeah.

我认为我们的观点是，正如您尊驾所阐述的，这是一个有用的参考依据。

I think our our point is that that's a a useful guidepost here for the reasons that your honor articulated.

私人个体在生命和肢体面临危险时能够进入，我们认为这为制宪者在此情况下认为什么是合理的提供了有益的指引。

The fact that, private individuals were able to enter to when life and limb were at stake, we think provide some helpful guidance about what the framers would have thought was reasonable here.

我不认为我们将它视为一个直接的一对一类比，但鉴于我们有修正案的文本作为依据，我认为我们并没有义务提出一个直接的历史类比。

I I don't think that we think of it as a direct one to one analog, but I don't really think it's our our burden to come up with a direct one to one historical analog here given that we have the the text of the amendment on our side.

真正要求在第四修正案的合理性标准上附加这一统一的合理根据要求的是原告，而这一要求并非修正案文本本身所强制规定的。

And it's really petitioner who's asking to graft on to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard, this uniform probable cause requirement that is not compelled by the text of the amendment itself.

您是否反对法院明确指出，执法人员必须拥有超过合理怀疑的证据，证明紧急情况正在发生？

Would you object to the court specifically saying that that the officers have to have more than reasonable suspicion that an emergency is occurring?

我认为我们会反对这一点，原因有几个。

I think we would object to it for a couple reasons.

我的意思是，首先，我认为合理怀疑是刑法中的一个标准，正如合理根据一样，正如卡根大法官刚刚与我的朋友所阐述的那样，将任何这些刑事调查标准作为依据，我认为弊大于利。

I mean, one, I think because reasonable suspicion is a standard from the criminal law just as probable cause is for the reasons that justice Kagan was was just articulating with my friend, just pegging it to any one of these criminal investigation standards, I think, does more harm than good.

但为什么呢？这难道不熟悉吗？

But why is that isn't that familiar?

我的意思是，他们习惯于这些标准。

I mean, they're used to those standards.

我理解他们在刑事背景下寻找犯罪时使用这些标准，但他们应该明白，合理根据与合理怀疑之间的区别，而我更关注后者。

And so I appreciate that they do it in the criminal context when they're looking for crimes, but they understand, I would think, the difference between probable cause and and and I'm more focused on reasonable suspicion in that context.

那么，我们为什么不能直接说，必须有超过合理怀疑的理由，才能认定紧急情况正在发生呢？

And so why couldn't we just say you have to have more than reasonable suspicion that an emergency is occurring?

有两个理由。

Well, two points.

首先，警察可能熟悉合理怀疑，但你们的标准也会适用于消防员、急救人员等，他们对合理怀疑的了解可能和对合理根据的了解一样少。

First of all, police officers may be familiar with reasonable suspicion, but your standard here will also apply to firefighters, paramedics, all of whom may have no more familiarity with reasonable suspicion than with probable cause.

而合理性标准我认为更容易理解。

And reasonableness is, I think, an easier standard to understand.

其次，考虑到紧急情况多种多样，最好别设定一个像合理怀疑这样的最低门槛，因为本法院确实无法预测所有可能发生的紧急情况。

Second of all, I do think just given how varied emergencies are, it's best not to sort of set either like, set a floor at at reasonable suspicion just because this court can't really predict all of the manner of emergencies that could arise.

与其给法院或执法人员设置这样的最低门槛，不如直接沿用《布里格汉姆城案》中的客观合理依据标准。

And rather than hamstringing courts or officers with setting a floor on this, better to just stick with the objectively reasonable basis test from Brigham City.

谢谢。

Thank you.

阿利托大法官？

Justice Alito?

在《布里格姆城案》中，我引用的是YesG的简报。

In Brigham City, I'm quoting from the YesG's brief.

一种理解紧急救助情形的方式是，警察必须具有客观合理信念这一基本要求——即 probable cause——并未改变。

One way to conceptualize the emergency aid situation is that the basic requirement that the police have an objectively reasonable belief, I e, probable cause dash does not change.

但 probable cause 的对象发生了变化。

But the object of the probable cause does change.

与其要求警察有客观合理的依据相信犯罪已经发生或即将发生，警察需要有客观合理的依据相信存在紧急援助的需求。

Rather than requiring an objectively reasonable basis for an officer to believe a crime has been or is about to occur, the officer needs an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency need for assistance exists.

您改变立场了吗？

Have you changed your position?

是的。

Yes.

在最高法院作出《布里格姆城案》判决后，该判决使用了‘客观合理依据’这一表述，但并未像我们在脚注中提出的那样将其与 probable cause 联系起来，我们因此重新思考了这一立场。

After, the court's decision in Brigham City which used the objectively reasonable basis language but did not draw that connection to probable cause that we had sort of floated in a footnote, we did rethink that.

在《康尼利亚案》或《康尼利亚案》中，五年前我们的简报明确表示，我们认为 probable cause 并非正确的标准。

And in Coniglia or Coniglia, our our brief five years ago, we we made clear that our view is that probable cause is not the correct standard.

可能不是，但Brigham是。

May not be, but Brigham is.

是的。

Yes.

Brigham City是正确的标准，我们已放弃那种等同关系。

Brigham City is the correct standard, and and we we sort of disavow that equivalence that

那合理怀疑也不是？

we And reasonable suspicion is not?

也不是正确的标准。

Not not the correct standard either.

仅从Brigham City来看，客观合理依据才是正确标准。

Objectively reasonable basis just from Brigham City is is the correct standard.

金斯伯格大法官？

Justice k?

戈萨奇大法官？

Gorsuch?