卡斯诉蒙大拿州

我的意思是，也许如果他多了解一点，或者他平时晚上常去酒吧，这就让我很难界定一个明确的标准。

I mean, maybe if he knew a little more or maybe his it's regular habit is to go to the the pub at night, and that's why I find it very difficult to articulate a standard.

我的意思是，你知道，我认为这不能仅仅基于可能发生问题的概率，或者因为你们希望警察即使面对非犯罪或非违法的情况，也能保持警觉。

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.

因此，作为一名警察、急救人员，甚至普通公民，你可能担心屋内出了状况，但即便在你刚才描述的情境中，也可能存在无害的解释，首席大法官。

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, Mr.

首席大法官，正如卡瓦诺大法官在《卡内利亚案》的协同意见中所描绘的许多情境一样，情况可能朝任何一方发展。

Chief Justice, in a lot of the scenarios that Justice Kavanaugh similarly sketched out in his concurrence in Canelia, it could tack either way.

但在这些情境中，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 going to have a lot of information about why it's uncharacteristic, why this is weird.

而这些信息非常有力，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与我们在《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，阿利托大法官，他们说的是：客观的、具体的、可说明的事实，据此有经验的警官会怀疑公民需要帮助。

So, Justice Alito, 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严重受伤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，认为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.

不仅是因为使用了‘怀疑’这个词，还包括‘具体且可说明的事实’这一表述。

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.

在伴随这一标准的脚注中，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，他们为何要进入屋内？

Why did they go in, in your view?

你是指我主观上为什么这么认为？

Why why do I think subjectively?

我认为他们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 and whether 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.

他真正想做的就是自杀。

He what he really wanted to do was to commit suicide.

他并不打算直接自杀。

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.

于是他们说，好吧，我们进去吧。

So they said, well, all right, let's go in.

这样他就会朝我们开枪，然后我们就会开枪击毙他。

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 going to 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，但从未付诸行动，不过有好几次他试图让我们替他完成。

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能开枪自杀，因为他做不到，他以前就尝试过‘以警代自杀’，还给我们留下了这些线索，所以我们决定进入房子，而他则会朝我们开枪。

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, so we're going to go in into the house, and and he's going to pull a gun on us.

所以这是一种反复出现的模式，所以

So there's a refrain So

他们希望满足他希望通过警察结束生命的愿望，从而让自己面临严重的死亡或重伤风险。

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.

那就是

That's what

要发生的

was going

吗？

on?

法官大人，当您观看视频时，在某个时刻，他们逐渐进入状态，开始准备进入房屋。

Your Honor, at a certain point in the when you watch the 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，但他们专注于采取必要的措施，以防他想与他们对峙。

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 shoot it out with them.

这种势头持续了四十分钟后，最终导致了突入。

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卡斯先生的评估，

But, again, if you if you consider the on the scene assessment by officers who knew Mr.

以及他们认为最严重的风险——即他将挑起对峙的风险，

Case And and the the risk that they thought was the serious one, it was the risk that he was going to provoke a confrontation.

我的意思是，所以所以

I mean, so so

如果我们撰写一份意见书，阐明本案的事实，并说：好吧，此案必须发回蒙大拿州最高法院，由他们适用《布里格汉姆市》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，就必须发回蒙大拿州最高法院。

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有人把枪抵在头上，或者看到地上有尸体，否则永远无法介入阻止某人自杀。

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，听好了，我们还是采取稳妥的做法吧。

So, look, let's do the safe thing.

除非我们有绝对确凿的证据，否则绝不进入。

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《费舍尔》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，没有一位大法官投票支持基于合理根据标准维持这次搜查，有三位大法官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 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，曾亲历过之前的两起事件。

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

好的。

All right.

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，它援引了自身的先例《Love Green》。

Counsel, that the state court is applying a lesser standard than reasonable suspicion, it cited the Love Green, its own precedent, Love Green.

是的。

Yes.

在《Love Green》案中，法院将社区看护式拦截描述为最不具侵扰性的拦截类别，甚至比特里式拦截还要轻微。

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《Brigham》案中所确立的标准。

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

确实不是。

It is not.

现在别再试图帮自己开脱了。

And 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.

让我来讲第二点，即Brigham案也指出，进入的方式必须是合理的。

Let me get to the second point, which is Brigham also said the manner of entry has to be reasonable.

明白吗？

Okay?

这里没有人讨论过一件事，包括阿利托大法官在内，那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.

对吧？

Correct?

大法官，当时的报警电话称他饮酒了。

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

所有这些报警电话中，没人想过就让他自己醒酒，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.

录像里有一段评论。

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.

好吧。

I All right.

而且他们也没想过，既然他从未对他人持枪，与其让他自杀身亡，为什么不派医疗人员进去呢？很多部门在处理自杀案件时都会这么做，对吧？

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.

这里，我想指出的是，这位林斯特德警官确实问过：我们是否安排医疗人员待命？

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

但我不认为他们这么做了，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.

没错。

Yeah.

他们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外，什么都没做。

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

对吧？

Correct?

是的，法官大人。

That's right, your honor.

他们谈到了打电话，联系其他人、家人，还有父亲。

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

他们谈到了给他打电话。

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，也存在一个真正的问题——并非一般情况下当你真的担心有人自杀时，因为他们说他没有那个胆量。

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.

一群人都在参与，听起来他们好像在打赌，每个人都说，他想通过警察自杀。

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.

他没有枪。

He doesn't have the guns.

是的，索托马约尔大法官。

Right, Justice Sotomayor.

我想引用反对意见。

I would quote the dissent.

反对意见指出，现场所有警员都表示，这种情况不太可能需要立即援助，而更可能是对方在等待他们出现，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、卡瓦诺大法官，先生。

Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, Mr.

巴雷特？

Barrett?

一个问题，也许蒙大拿方面可以回答。

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携带武器时，派遣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，大法官。

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根据吗？

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

撇开本案奇特的细节以及警察所知的所有信息，根据您的合理根据标准，如果我们仅考虑女友的来电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，说的不是‘砰’，而是有枪，正如阿利托大法官所指出的，行动已经发生，并且确实有

If if they actually I want to 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 gun, the action, as as 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，‘砰’这个词在电话里可能指任何东西。

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

如果能听到枪机上膛，或者听到枪支以某种方式被击发，我认为情况就不同了。

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。

I don't want to belabor this.

我想我只是想把自杀式袭警的情况单独拿出来，看看在您的标准下，到目前为止的所有情况是否都算数，而您只是说因为自杀式袭警的情形，我们没有合理根据？

I guess I'm just trying to isolate Sure.

根据您的标准，所有这些信息是否都构成反向因素，而您只是说我们没有合理根据，因为存在自杀式袭警的情况？

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，大法官。

Yes, Your Honor.

是的，大法官。

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

谢谢。

Thank you.

是的，大法官。

Yes, Your Honor.

谢谢。

Thank you.

科里根先生？

Mister Corrigan?

首席大法官先生，尊敬的法庭，您好。

Mister chief justice, and may it please the court.

本院应维持下级法院的判决，理由有三。

This court should affirm the judgment below for three reasons.

首先，第四修正案保护的是不合理的搜查，而非所有无令状的搜查。

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，执法人员和普通公民在生命面临危险时，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.

原告的规则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.

此举在文本中无依据，历史上无根基，且在本法院的紧急情况判例中无支持。

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

其次，本法院已将紧急进入的标准设定为客观合理性。

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

若采纳申诉人的观点，本法院将不得不推翻布里格姆城诉案的判决。

To adopt Petitioner's view, this Court would have to overrule the holding in Brigham City v.

并摒弃密歇根诉斯图尔特案的裁决。

Stewart, discard Michigan v.

费希尔案，并将合理根据——这一关于犯罪确信的经典刑法概念——重塑为某种全新且适用于非刑事、非调查性紧急情况的标准。

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，要求存在危险合理根据的规则会迫使警官们站在垂死者的门外计算法律门槛，而不是挽救其生命。

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.

这不是制定者们所写的内容，也不是本法院曾经要求过的。

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.

这一标准忠实于文本、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.

蒙大拿州最高法院引用了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.

但你们和原告似乎对是否适用了这一标准存在分歧。

So 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表述。

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一个新标准，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，大法官，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，本案的事实尤其有力，无论本院确立何种标准，本案的事实都符合该标准，即警察有客观合理的依据相信凯斯先生

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 Mr.

需要立即援助。

Case needed immediate aid.

您认为澄清一下会更有帮助吗？我的意思是，如果关于所适用的标准存在一些模糊之处，比如，我们并不在意这个，好吗？

Would it be helpful, do you think, to clarify I mean, if there's some ambiguity about what the standard was that was applied, say, we don't care about that, 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，我们其实不必这么做。

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

我们可以发回重审，但如果我们能用具体的事实为困惑的下级法院提供指导，会不会更有帮助？

We could send it back, but would it help to provide guidance to confused lower courts for us to use a concrete set of facts to

当然，正如Gorshed大法官所说。

explain Absolutely, what that Justice Gorshed.

这是警察每天都会遇到的情况。

This is a scenario that officers face every day.

紧急救助的情形非常常见，无论是像本案这样的自杀报警，还是关于失踪老人的报警，或是Brigham City或Fisher那样的混合情形。

Emergency aid scenarios are very common, 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Brigham City案所确立的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.

你认为我们现有的记录已经充分到可以这么做吗？

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

当然。

Absolutely.

全部

All

对。

right.

那你如何回应对方律师关于紧急避险在《法律重述》下比普通法更宽松的观点？

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，对方律师援引了Rex v.

I think at common law my my friend on the other side pointed to the cases of Rex v.

Cody和Scott案，当...

Cody and Scott When v.

你阅读这些案例时，它们都基于合理性分析。

You read those cases, it's all based on a reasonableness analysis.

在Rex v.

In in the Rex v.

在Cody案中，如果能证明行为出于最佳动机或必要性明显成立，则限制行为是正当的。

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，这听起来像是一个合理性标准。

To me, that sounds like a reasonableness standard.

现在，关于当时合理性标准的问题在于，我们在侵权法中直到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讨论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根植于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。

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.

蒙大拿州遵循《重述》吗？

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,

如果我们把这当作紧急情况，但有很多情况看起来并不像紧急状况。

if 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，到处转悠了一阵子，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，他们叫了别人来，但人还在那儿，然后又去拿了个防暴盾牌。

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，这根本不像那种‘我们必须马上冲进去’的氛围。

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，这是否会削弱他们有充分正当理由的说法。

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

尤其是正如丽莎所说，如果警察进入后才出现紧急情况，那么就会引发警察导致自杀的问题。

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

嗯，首席大法官先生，我确实同意，如果他们等待时间过长，这将不利于紧急情况的认定。

Well, Mr.

但在本案中，我认为时间线非常重要。

Chief Justice, I would certainly agree that at some point, if they did wait too long, that would that would cut against an emergency.

警察于上午9点14分到达现场。

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

他的前女友于9点18分到达。

Officers arrive on the scene at 09:14 p.

他们进行了敲门并宣告。

M.

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。

His ex girlfriend arrives at 09:18.

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 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, they spend the next twenty minutes trying to verify the facts that she communicated to them in this case.

时间是在晚上9点34分

And it's at 09:34 p.

。

M.

当他们搜查房屋外部时，用手电筒透过窗户发现了那封遗书。

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向他们通报的事实。

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

不过，我认为，确实存在警察协助自杀的可能性，这要求他们更加谨慎，这一点在执法记录仪中可以看到。

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

当然，他们担心警察协助自杀的情况，但这就是为什么他们进行了额外调查，比如在房子外围走动，对着敞开的窗户喊话，给凯斯先生

Of course, they are worried about the concept of about the instance of suicide by cop, but that's why they're doing the additional investigation of walking around the outside of the house, yelling into an open window, giving Mr.

每一个机会来告知他们他还活着并在屋内，但他没有这样做。

Case every every opportunity to let them know that he is alive and inside, which he didn't do.

检察长先生，蒙大拿州是否——在我看来，判例法中似乎存在一些混淆，而且我认为本案的标准有些草率。

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

蒙大拿州是否有某种独立的社区看护例外，或者称之为社区看护例外，实际上等同于我们从《布里格姆城案》中确立的紧急救助条款？

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，他们实际上将《布里格姆城案》纳入其中了。

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

我同意标准上存在一些混淆，但这是一个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 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，完全可以随意命名，但您会同意，我们已经否定了这种说法。

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

我们在《卡内利亚案》中已经否定了它。

We've rejected it in Canelia la Canelia.

今天真是漫长的一天。

It's been a long day.

但你们所要求的只是紧急救助例外和Brigham City的标准，你们并没有说要一个更宽松的标准吧？

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.

我们完全遵循Brigham City和Coniglia的标准。

We are entirely consistent with Brigham City 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，他们的引用，抱歉。

And and on that And their cite I'm sorry.

他们引用Lovedwin案时，说那是低于合理怀疑的标准，我们难道就直接忽略了这一点吗？

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

法院承认自己使用了不精确的措辞。

Well, the court is admittedly using imprecise language.

我认为重要的是，法院正在适用整体情况分析，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，法院在提问时也提到，法院在适用这一测试的具体情形时，有时会使用与合理怀疑相类似的措辞。

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，法院所要做的正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.

实际上，我没有看到任何案例讨论过这一搜查方式的合理性。

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

我指出了相关事项。

And I pointed to things.

巴雷特大法官说得对。

Justice Barrett was right.

你不会派医务人员进入一个有武装人员的房间，但你会打电话给医务人员，让他们与有自杀倾向的人进行通话。

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.

他们可以这样做。

They could do that.

现在，

Now as

你可以把扩音器放在那里。

You could 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疗人员，当时他已经中枪，但这里的警员们

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, but the officers here

因为，是的，他在中枪之后。

because, yes, after he had been shot.

当他们有很大把握知道他意图通过警察实施自杀时。

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Mr.

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

案件。

Case.

事实上，认识凯斯三十年的萨瑟警长作证说，根据以往的事件，他原本认为自己可以说服凯斯，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.

直到他们获得了可靠证据，证实凯斯确实中了枪，警长才赶到并说：我们必须冲进去。

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？回到你刚才提到的巴雷特大法官那里，你并没有将布莱恩姆市的标准与我们的特里拦截标准等同起来？

Am I right 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?

没错。

Correct.

你认为这两者是两回事吗？

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.

关于城市诉布里格姆标准与合理根据标准之间的区别，您的立场是城市诉布里格姆标准更宽松，还是您认为它只是不同？

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，正如法院在我方朋友刚才发言时所认识到的，合理根据不仅仅关乎达到某个特定门槛。

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.

但客观合理性标准则问：在所有情况综合考量下，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：合理根据是对某种证据量是否达标作出的单一判断，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，当警员们

And what I mean by that is when officers

所以这对我有帮助，我认为，因为这涉及太多内容了。

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

但是，这两种标准之间的差距体现在哪里呢？

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，却仍能满足布莱姆城标准？

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

你们具体指的是哪些情况？

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

所以，我认为如果拿这个具体案件来说，去掉卡斯先生的前科——

So I think if you take this particular case and subtract perhaps Mr.

我们其实认为，卡斯先生的前科反而支持了警官的合理判断，或者如果他们没有获得其他可靠的迹象，

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.

假设卡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，但他们还没看到那张自杀笔记，不确定他是否在楼上，也没看到啤酒罐或空的枪套，

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, might have been upstairs with him, They hadn't seen the beer cans or the empty paddle holster.

我认为这种情况就更难判断了，但我们仍认为这是客观上合理的。

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

我想指出的是，对方的律师认为，即使本案中的证据非常充分，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尔托大法官之前的问题，认定本案的事实不构成合理根据，这将对执法部门产生严重的不利影响。

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.

他们说这些事实不构成合理根据，是因为他们降低了标准。

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

我在最后问他这个问题：如果没有‘以警促自杀’的信息，你们认为能达到这个标准吗？

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能达到，但正是警察掌握了这些额外信息，才使得卡斯先生实际自杀的可能性降低，或客观上更不可能。

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 Mr.

卡斯先生实际上会自杀的可能性更低。

Case would actually commit suicide.

我认为有必要将‘以警促自杀’的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.

因此，现场发生的一些情况，我认为帕沙警长的谈话明显非常担心‘以警促自杀’的问题。

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.

‘以警促自杀’这个说法最初是在卡斯与前女友通话时出现的，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 going to kill myself.

她回应说：‘如果你威胁要这么做，我就得叫警察。’

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

她说：‘我要和他拼了。’或者他说：‘我要和他拼了。’

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句话的担忧回应说，他没这个胆量。

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

所以我认为，蒙大拿最高法院的异议是错误的，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，自杀式袭警确实是一种可能性，但警员们根据他自2015年以来不断升级的暴力历史，以及十八个月前发生的事件，已经排除了这种可能性。

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.

特别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，但当法院需要权衡隐私权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 you 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已经这样做了。

But I think the Court just did this in Barnes.

法院承认，这是一个事实密集的复杂局面，需要仔细关注事实和具体情况，包括导致关键时刻的前因后果。

And the Court admitted that it's a factbound 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况。

And the Court has to consider all relevant circumstances.

我认为，在讨论这一情境的顶点时，即人类生命与家庭神圣性之间的权衡，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.

过度使用武力的语境还涉及两个强烈的对立利益：警察的安全与使用致命武力之间的冲突。

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.

将其应用于本案也是合理的。

The application of it makes sense.

关于布里格汉姆市案所提到的混合情形，我认为布里格汉姆市案以及其他涉及潜在犯罪行为的案例都承认，急救人员首先就是急救人员。

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，他们并不一定关注潜在的犯罪行为。

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 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.

我们对待混合案件的方式与处理其他紧急情况相同。

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 I was articulating to Justice Kagan, is the objective reasonableness standard allows a a progressive analysis.

因此，当警察到达现场并进行敲门宣告时，他们可能无法立即合理地直接冲进前门，但这一标准允许他们绕到房屋附属区域，通过敞开的窗户呼喊，采取渐进措施，提醒屋内人员并给予他们充分的机会回应，让他们知道警察是安全的。

And so when the officers arrive and do a knock and announce, they may not have it may not be objectively reasonable right away for them to go through the front door, 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，合理根据标准缺乏这种足够的灵活性，也无法区分进入门内和砸碎窗户之间的不同，而巴恩斯标准和合理性标准则能区分使警方合理地制服嫌疑人、扑倒嫌疑人或使用致命武力的不同事实。

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, whereas the Barnes 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恰当地适用了本院在《布里格汉姆市案》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《布里格汉姆市案》和《费舍尔案》中所说的含义明确：当警员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，朱利奥大法官。

Justice Thomas, justice Julio.

律师，我们进入住宅的案件中，一个核心原则是，除非有公认的例外情况，否则我们不会在没有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.

我理解这种本能反应，即我们不希望真正需要帮助的人无法让警察迅速进入，但历史上我们一直在进行权衡。

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 in historically.

而不要求足够的证据也会付出生命的代价。

And not requiring enough proof also cost cost lives.

上诉人引用的报告显示，患有严重精神疾病的人在遭遇警察时被击毙的可能性是普通人的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起案例中，求助呼叫（非犯罪报警，如911电话或健康检查）导致警察开枪打死了他们本应协助的人。

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.

这是一个微妙的平衡，但我们难道不应该确保下级法院至少遵循正确的标准吗？

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

所以您一直告诉我们，尽管这个州使用的措辞听起来与‘合理怀疑’非常相似，尽管有Lovegrin案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.

如果您是在要求我们描述证明的量级，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.

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，我同意法院需要作出澄清。

So I agree that clarification from the court.

我认为法院可以澄清，它在《Brigham City》案和《Fisher》案中的意思就是如此：客观合理的依据就是标准。

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.

而这不是合理的怀疑？

And And that it's not reasonable suspicion?

这并不一定是合理怀疑。

It's it's not necessarily reasonable suspicion.

相信

Believe in

在某些情况下存在

some cases there's

你有资格。

you're qualified.

在某些情况下，标准可能看起来像合理怀疑，而在另一些情况下，灵活性使其更接近可能原因。

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

而你希望它是合理怀疑？

And you want it to be reasonable suspicion?

客观合理性标准最符合宪法的文本、历史和传统。

Well, the 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.

但客观合理性标准更加灵活，也更符合文本精神，它能应对这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.

所以你还不如直接说下级法院的说法。

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

它低于一个樱桃停车的标准。

It's less than a cherry stop.

嗯，我认为我会参考

Well, I think I'd look to

在Fisher案中，法院指出，执法人员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。

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.

我们所要求的只是他们运用常识。

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

执法人员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，本院可以将所阐明的任何标准应用于本案的事实，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.

金斯伯格大法官？

Justice Kueh?

我觉得我有点困惑，总检察长，因为我认为您之前告诉我，布里格姆市标准与特里拦截标准不同，而且您并未要求采用后者？

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 that you were not asking for the latter?

不是的。

It it's not.

并非在所有情况下都是如此。

It's not in all cases.

布里格姆市标准就是布里格姆市标准。

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.

文本比那要复杂得多。

The text is just more complex than that.

谢谢。

Thank you.

女士。

Ms.

戈尔盖施女士。

Gorgesch, Ms.

坎佩尔女士。

Kampfel.

夫人。

Mrs.

巴雷特太太？

Barrett?

你可能最好还是坚持使用布里格姆城的标准。

You might be better off just sticking with Brigham City.

我认为你可能想表达的是，在某些情况下，布里格姆城所指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城标准和 probable cause（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 same result.

但你真的在说我们应该采取与布里格姆城不同的做法，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?

你在第一部分，也就是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城案意味着合理怀疑。

We are not saying that they should that the Court that Brigham City means reasonable suspicion.

我们想说的是，在某些情况下，正如你所说的，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 we're saying is in some instances, it could have as you said, Justice Barrett, yield a result like reasonable suspicion just like it could yield a result like probable.

原因。

Cause.

我们不需要这么说。

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：根据Brigham City案，有客观合理依据相信即可，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?

先生。

Mr.

首席大法官，各位法官，您好。

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，而非采纳原告所称的危险可能性标准。

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，该修正案将可能理由与搜查令挂钩，而非与一般搜查挂钩。

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》是为了防止刑事调查中的过度行为，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，申请人的规则将使政府官员更难帮助处于危机中的人，从家庭暴力受害者到跌倒后无法起身的老年人。

Yet Petitioners' 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，紧急进入应以合理性为标准进行评估，这是一种灵活的判断，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 leave 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底线的规则，但第四修正案并不要求紧急进入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.

我们是否应在此案中适用这一规则，还是发回重审？

Should we apply this rule here or send it back?

我们认为你们应当在此案中适用这一规则。

We think you should apply this rule here.

我认为有人对蒙大拿州最高法院在其测试中使用‘怀疑’一词存在疑问。

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条那样解读判决，尤其是因为在这份判决的其他地方，蒙大拿州最高法院明确表示，其测试在很大程度上与第九巡回法院的测试一致，后者使用的是‘客观合理依据相信’这一表述。

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 tests its test largely mirrored the Ninth Circuit's test, which uses the objectively reasonable basis for believing language.

而且因为它在其他地方使用了除‘怀疑’之外的其他动词。

And because it used other verbs elsewhere besides suspect.

思考，Pet Op。

Think, Pet Op.

14a，脚注五，他们说存在客观合理的依据来认定存在危险。

14a, footnote five, they say there was an objectively reasonable basis for finding a danger.

所以我我会避免仅基于‘怀疑’这个词发回重审，或者但煽动至

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

异议意见在回应他们使用合理怀疑的指控时，从未说过‘我们没有使用’这样的话。

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

这本是最容易做到的事情。

Would have been the easiest thing to do.

我们没有使用合理怀疑。

We're not using reasonable suspicion.

相反，他们表示我们不需要这样做，因为其目的不同于逮捕，是出于不同的目的。

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

在我看来，这并不是一种否认。

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

我理解他们的意思是在某种程度上否认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

标准。

standard.

不。

No.

他们说我们没有给予随意许可，但他们并没有否认这一点。

They 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，不将此案发回重审的理由正是艾利托大法官之前所阐述的：如果你给执法人员和下级法院造成一种印象，认为本案事实是否符合《布里格汉姆市》测试标准尚存疑虑，我认为这将导致大量混乱，并使执法人员担心他们无法依据此类信息采取进入行动。

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

如果我们在本案中适用这一标准，我们是否忽略了他们本不应进入的相反因素？

If they would think they 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.

警官们根本没有关注试图与父亲沟通，或呼叫医生，或喊话劝他不要进入屋内。

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.

他们决定直接闯入，那我们岂不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吗？

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 of things.

第一，我建议不要过度依赖录像中的警官言论，尤其是在压制听证会的记录中，几位警官确实提供了宣誓证词，称他们主观上担心他确实已经受伤。

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

因此，这种情况是有依据的

So this was give a situation basis

为了这个？

for that?

他们为此提供了依据吗？

Did they give a basis for that?

我认为是那个电话、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.

他们表达了对其中一种结果的担忧，并不意味着不存在客观合理的依据来相信其他结果也可能发生。

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，我理解你同意蒙大拿州的观点，即在《布里格姆城》测试下，确定性的程度可以波动，而这正是你提出的滑动尺度所要解决的问题。

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，而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、固定不变的危险确定性标准。

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

在不同情况下，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并不相同。

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.

但这些关键因素是否有助于我们这样表述呢？

But those are the key factors that would it be helpful for us to kind of say that kind of thing?

换句话说，我理解你的滑动尺度本质上是一个与危险严重程度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，只是说这些是能让进入行为合理化的相关考量因素。

We don't mean it's sort of strictly formulaic or a matrix or anything like that, just that these are relevant considerations that can make an entry reasonable.

是的。

Yes.

说实话，我完全不明白这个滑动尺度的概念，能帮我解释一下吗？

I don't understand the sliding scale thing at all, I will be honest, 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?

而且要将所有这些情况都列出来几乎是不可能的。

And it's almost impossible to catalog them all.

但另一方面，关于严重性，我们在布里格姆扬案中提到过，我的意思是布里格姆城，抱歉。

But on the other hand, 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，但布莱克斯通的经典表述是‘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 the severity is the severity.

不存在什么滑动尺度。

It doesn't there's no sliding scale.

你不能用大量证据去处理一个倒刺。

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

我完全同意这一点。

I absolutely agree with that.

我的意思是，我们认为滑动尺度的外限是由Brigham City案中提出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, there's 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和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

基于部分信息。

on some of information.

这真的是做

That's really Do

您对普通法中的必要性原则有什么看法？

have any thoughts about the common law of necessity?

是的。

Yes.

我认为我们的观点是，正如您尊贵的法官所指出的，私人个体在生命和肢体面临危险时能够进入，这为我们提供了有益的指引，说明制宪者们在此情境下会认为什么是合理的。

I think our point is that that's a useful guidepost here for the reasons that Your Honor articulated, the fact that private individuals were able to enter when life and limb were at stake, we think, provides some helpful guidance about what the Framers would have thought was reasonable here.

我们并不认为这是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，我们并不认为有责任提出一个直接的历史类比。

I don't think that we think of it as a direct one:one analog, but I don't really think it's our our burden to come up with a direct one:one historical analog here, given that we have 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，是申请人，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依据，才能认定紧急情况正在发生？

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

我认为我们对此有几点反对意见。

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

我的意思是，首先，合理怀疑是刑法中的一个标准，正如 probable cause 一样，正如卡根大法官刚才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.

但为什么这不熟悉呢？

But why is that isn't that familiar?

我的意思是，他们对这些标准很熟悉。

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，但我认为他们明白 probable cause 和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 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?

有两个观点。

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 probable cause 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.

我认为，合理性是一个更容易理解的标准。

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

其次，鉴于紧急情况多种多样，最好别设定一个像合理怀疑这样的最低标准，因为本法院无法预测所有可能发生的紧急情况形式。

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 regional suspicion just because this Court can't really predict all of the manner of emergencies that could arise.

与其用设定最低标准来束缚法院或执法人员，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《布里格汉姆城案》中，我引用的是原告方的简报。

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

一种理解紧急援助情形的方式是，警察必须具备客观合理的信念，我。

One way to conceptualize the emergency aid situation is that the basic requirement that the police have an objectively reasonable belief, I.

E，合理怀疑——这一点并未改变。

E, probable cause dash does not change.

但 probable cause 的目的发生了变化。

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.

你改变立场了吗？

Have you changed your position?

是的。

Yes.

在最高法院作出 Brigham City 判决后，该判决使用了‘客观合理依据’这一表述，但并未像我们曾在脚注中提出的那样将其与 probable cause 联系起来，我们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 Caniglia 或 Canelia 案中，五年前我们的简报明确表示，我们的观点是 probable cause 并非正确的标准。

And in Caniglia or Canelia, 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 City 案是。

May not be, but Brigham is.

是的。

Yes.

Brigham City 是正确的标准。

Brigham City is the correct standard.

我们实际上否定了这种等同关系，

And and we we sort of disavow that equivalence that

我们，合理怀疑不是。

we And reasonable suspicion it's not.

也不是正确的标准。

Not not the correct standard either.

根据 Brigham City 案，客观合理依据才是正确的标准。

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

K大法官？

Justice K?

请说。

Go ahead.

杰克逊大法官？

Justice Justice Jackson?