代翻譯如下判決－dkdqgav的部落格

標題:

代翻譯如下判決

發問:

Seventy-five years ago, in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886), considering the Fourth 4 and Fifth Amendments as running "almost into each other" 5 on the facts before it, this Court held that the doctrines of those Amendments "apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its... 顯示更多 Seventy-five years ago, in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886), considering the Fourth 4 and Fifth Amendments as running "almost into each other" 5 on the facts before it, this Court held that the doctrines of those Amendments "apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, [367 U.S. 643, 647] that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property . . . . Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation . . . [of those Amendments]." The Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." At p. 635. In this jealous regard for maintaining the integrity of individual rights, the Court gave life to Madison's prediction that "independent tribunals of justice . . . will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights." I Annals of Cong. 439 (1789). Concluding, the Court specifically referred to the use of the evidence there seized as "unconstitutional." At p. 638.

最佳解答:

希望大大滿意~ 七十五年前，在Boyd v。美國， 116美國。 616， 630 (1886)，就第四4和第五次修正而論作為賽跑「幾乎到彼此裡」 5在事實在它之前，這個法院保持那些校正教條「適用於所有入侵在政府和它的神聖的一個人的家庭和生活保密性的employes部分。它不是打破他的門和搜查他的抽屜， [367美國。 643， 647]構成進攻的精華; 但它是他的入侵不能取消權利個人安全、個人自由和私有財產。 . . . 闖入房子和開始的箱子和抽屜是惡化情況; 但一個人的自己的證詞的所有強迫和必修強奪將使用的或他的私有資料作為證據判罪他罪行或放棄他的物品，在譴責之內。 . . [那些校正]。「法院注意到，「應該寬宏地解釋嚮人和物產安全的憲法供應。 . . . 它就此是法院義務注意的為公民的憲法給予的權利和反對所有秘密侵犯。「在p。 635. 以這嫉妒的特點為維護個人權利正直，法院給了生活「正義獨立法庭的麥迪遜的預言。 . . 將自然地被帶領抵抗每侵犯在為在憲法明確地規定的權利由權利的聲明。「我Cong史冊。 439 (1789)。結束，法院具體地提到了對證據的用途那裡被佔領如「違反憲法」。在p。 638.

其他解答: