| Tweet |
【ファシズム国家アメリカ】警察が「怪しい」とみなせば不当逮捕して証拠品漁りをしても「合憲」と連邦最高裁が暗黒判決
米国では、警察が「こいつ怪しいヤツだ」と睨めば、たとえ規則違反の不当逮捕を
行なって「証拠品あさり」の強盗行為を行なっても「合憲」であると、連邦最高裁が
4月23日（水曜日）に全員一致で判決を下した。
この事件は元々ヴァージニア州で起きたもので、警察・検察の違法手続きに
ついては同州最高裁がこれをとがめる判決を出していたのだが、このたび
連邦最高裁が、州最高裁の判決をくつがえして、「警察は犯罪をおかしている
疑いがある怪しい人物に出会ったら、自分の身をまもり証拠を押さえるために
拉致監禁行為（＝逮捕拘禁）や私物奪取行為（＝証拠捜査押収）が許されるし、
合衆国憲法修正４条もそれを保障している」という主旨の判決を出した。
これはブッシュ政権下のアメリカ合衆国がついに「憲法」を乱用する独裁的
ファシズム国家に成り果てたことを示す、画期的な事件の一つであると
いえるだろうが、日本にとっても“対岸の火事”ではすまない。
三浦和義氏は、いまだアメリカの植民地である「米領北マリアナ諸島」の
サイパンで２ヶ月前に拉致監禁され、いまだ監禁状態が続いているわけだが、
今回の米国連邦最高裁判決が判例として使われれば、三浦氏の不当逮捕に
もとづく拉致監禁が、正当化されてしまう恐れがある。
そうなった場合には、米国の刑事訴訟手続きが国際的な民主主義法制に
逆行する暗黒弾圧であることを追及するかたちで、三浦氏に対する
アメリカの――より正確にいえば米領で継続中の不祥事ゆえ「アメリカ帝国
主義」の――弾圧を糾弾していく必要が出てくるだろうし、国際アムネスティー
などによる三浦氏救援活動も必要になってくるかもしれない。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2008/Apr08/042108/042408-01.htm
U.S. Supreme Court OKs search and seizure even when arrests are invalid
April 24, 2008
Police have the power to search arrestees and seize evidence even if the arrest is later found illegal, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Wednesday, April 23.
The ruling stems from a traffic stop in Portsmouth, VA. David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license – a minor crime in Virginia, which typically results in police issuing a court summons before letting drivers leave the scene, according to a report from The Associated Press.
Portsmouth detectives, however, arrested Moore, and prosecutors used crack cocaine taken from him as evidence. Moore was convicted and sentenced to more than three years in prison on a drug charge.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court, which decided police should have let Moore go without searching him.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that when officers have probable cause to believe someone has committed a crime in their presence, the officer is permitted by the Fourth Amendment to arrest and search the suspect in order to protect themselves and keep evidence.
Virginia prosecutors were supported by 18 state attorneys general and officials from the Bush administration, The AP reported.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004369876_ndig24.html
Nation Digest
Supreme Court affirms drug-arrest case
Thursday, April 24, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Washington
The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.
The unanimous decision came in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from motorist David Lee Moore after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.
Justice Antonin Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.
Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 ½ years in prison. The Virginia Supreme Court had ruled police could not lawfully conduct a search.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/23/scotus.searches/
Supreme Court broadens police searches
By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer
April 23, 2008 -- Updated 1815 GMT (0215 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court offered unanimous support for police Wednesday by allowing drug evidence gathered after an arrest that violated state law to be used at trial, an important search-and-seizure case turning on the constitutional limits of "probable cause."
"When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.
David Lee Moore was stopped by Portsmouth, Virginia, officers five years ago for driving his vehicle on a suspended license. Under state law in such incidents, only a summons is to be issued and the motorist is to be allowed to go. Instead, detectives detained Moore for almost an hour, arrested him, then searched him and found cocaine.
At trial, Moore's lawyers tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it, even though the court noted the arrest violated state law. A police detective, asked why the man was arrested, replied, "Just our prerogative."
While some of the justices expressed concern about that level of discretion at oral arguments in January, their 9-0 ruling raised few such doubts.
"The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone," Scalia said. "It is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law."
The state had argued an arrest is constitutionally reasonable if officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime. "This standard represents the best compromise between the needs of the citizens and the duty of the government to combat crime," Stephen McCullough, Virginia's deputy solicitor general, had told the high court.
But Moore's attorney, Thomas Goldstein, called an "extreme proposition" the idea that it would be reasonable "to go out and arrest someone for a non-arrestable offense and not only do that, but having committed that trespass at common law, to further search them."
There has been widespread judicial confusion over how such police searches should be handled. Some lower courts had ruled that when state arrest law is violated, the Constitution provides a remedy in the suppression of any evidence resulting from the arrest and a related search.
But the justices agreed with the majority of courts that said constitutional requirements are satisfied when an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, even if some provision of state law was violated in the process.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion suggesting Virginia change its law to make driving on a suspended license an arrestable offense.
During arguments, Ginsburg spoke for several colleagues when she pointed out that if a summons had been issued in Moore's case, any incriminating evidence would have been excluded. "Would you explain the logic to saying that when the police violate state law, then the evidence can come in, but when they comply with state law, it can't," she asked.
The ruling means Moore's original jury conviction and 3-½ year prison term will stand.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。