Katz among the Pigeons: The Erosion of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

G. Minchin
{"title":"Katz among the Pigeons: The Erosion of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America","authors":"G. Minchin","doi":"10.4236/blr.2020.112034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Katz v. United States the Supreme \nCourt of the United States considered Fourth Amendment rights. This decision is seen as bolstering \nrights, as it rolled back previous decisions which restricted the scope of the \nFourth Amendment. However, it did so by conceptualising the Fourth Amendment as \na right to privacy when the text of the Amendment states it is to protect “the \nright of the people to be secure…”. This re-writing of the Fourth Amendment \nreduced a public “right of the people”, which reflects the broad societal \nperspective, to a merely personal right or interest. The Right was given \nbroader scope but it was made weaker. In most circumstances a personal interest \nwill be trumped by a public interest, such as law and order, because the latter \nwill engage the interests of more people. What is lost is the public interest \nin restraining state power.","PeriodicalId":300394,"journal":{"name":"Beijing Law Review","volume":"67 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beijing Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2020.112034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In Katz v. United States the Supreme Court of the United States considered Fourth Amendment rights. This decision is seen as bolstering rights, as it rolled back previous decisions which restricted the scope of the Fourth Amendment. However, it did so by conceptualising the Fourth Amendment as a right to privacy when the text of the Amendment states it is to protect “the right of the people to be secure…”. This re-writing of the Fourth Amendment reduced a public “right of the people”, which reflects the broad societal perspective, to a merely personal right or interest. The Right was given broader scope but it was made weaker. In most circumstances a personal interest will be trumped by a public interest, such as law and order, because the latter will engage the interests of more people. What is lost is the public interest in restraining state power.
《鸽子中的卡茨:美利坚合众国宪法第四修正案的侵蚀》
在卡茨诉美国案中,美国最高法院考虑了第四修正案的权利。这一决定被视为支持权利,因为它推翻了以前限制第四修正案范围的决定。然而,它通过将第四修正案概念化为隐私权来做到这一点,而修正案的案文规定它是为了保护“人民安全的权利……”。这种对第四修正案的重写将反映广泛社会观点的公共“人民权利”减少为仅仅是个人的权利或利益。右翼被赋予了更广泛的活动范围,但却被削弱了。在大多数情况下,个人利益将被公共利益(如法律和秩序)所压倒,因为后者将涉及更多人的利益。失去的是限制国家权力的公共利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信