US police must obtain a warrant to search a suspect’s smartphone after the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that constitutional privacy protections apply to the often extensive data people keep on the devices in their pockets.美国最高法院(US Supreme Court)周三裁决，那些装有在人们口袋里的设备上存储的大量数据也限于宪法隐私维护条款。今后，美国警方必需获得许可才能搜查嫌疑人的智能手机。

In a unanimous ruling praised by privacy campaigners, the court decided that searching a smartphone was more like downloading the contents of a computer than leafing through someone’s address book.该法院完全一致作出的这一判决获得了隐私维护人士的称赞。在这一判决中，美国最高法院确认，对智能手机的搜查更加看起来从电脑上iTunes内容，而不是翻翻某人的电话本。

The fourth amendment bans “unreasonable searches and seizures” but police are usually allowed to search the personal belongings a suspect is carrying. Lower courts had been divided on whether to ban searches of smartphones without a warrant.美国宪法第四修正案禁令“公然搜查和扣留”，不过一般来说美国警方搜查嫌犯装载的个人物品是容许的。而对于否不应禁令在无许可情况下搜查智能手机中的内容，美国下级法院一直不存在分歧。Chief Justice John Roberts said the “immense storage capacity” of smartphones made them different from anything else a suspect is holding.首席法官约翰罗伯茨(John Roberts)回应，智能手机的“极大存储量”令其其大同小异嫌犯装载的其他任何物品。

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life’,” he wrote. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.”他写到：“当代手机并某种程度是又一种技术上的便捷工具。以所存储和有可能泄漏的内容而言，对许多美国人来说，它们就是‘生活隐私’的载体。如今，科技的发展令其个人可以将这类信息带上在手中，但这并不代表这些信息的维护价值有任何增加——这种维护正是我们的建国者曾为之努力奋斗过的。

”The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy rights campaign group, described the ruling as “groundbreaking”. Hanni Fakhoury, staff attorney, said: “This should have implications for other forms of government electronic searches and surveillance, tightening the rules for police behaviour and preserving our privacy rights in our increasingly digital world.”该案源自两起警方搜查电话的事件。在“隆利诉加利福尼亚州案”(Riley v California)中，警方在一个智能手机上找到了需要证明嫌疑人有罪的照片及其他信息，这些内容能将嫌疑人与一起枪击案联系一起，州法院回应这么做到是合法的。然而波士顿再次发生的另一个案件却得出结论了忽略的结论，在该案中嫌疑人普通功能电话（不是智能电话）上的一个通话记录被用来推测他的居住地。该案中的这一证据被联邦裁决法庭回避。

The Constitutional Accountability Center, which like the EFF filed a brief in the case, said it was a good day for the “Bill of Rights”. Doug Kendall, CAC president, said searching cell phones without a warrant was “even more intrusive” than “similar searches of colonial-era homes, which the Founders fought against in the Revolutionary War”.美国最高法院上诉了加州一案中的裁决。The case originated from two incidents where police searched phones. In Riley v California, police found incriminating photos and other information on a smartphone connecting a suspect to a shooting, which state courts said was legal. But another case in Boston reached the opposite conclusion, where a call on a suspect’s feature phone (not as advanced as a smartphone) was used to discover where he lived. The evidence in that case was thrown out by a federal appeals court.罗伯茨回应，这一判决对于执法人员机构打击犯罪的能力可能会有影响。他写到：“手机已沦为犯罪团伙成员协商和交流的最重要辅助工具，需要获取近于有价值的危险性罪行定罪信息。但维护隐私还是要付出代价的。

本文来源：NG体育-www.941md.com