{"title":"案例评论:Schmerber诉California, 384 U.S. 757, 1996","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1346464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An entry in the Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties explaining the United States Supreme Court's decision in Schmerber v. California upholding the constitutionality of the compelled extraction of blood sample evidence from an arrestee as \"real\" evidence as opposed to a \"testimonial\" communication.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case Comment: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 1996\",\"authors\":\"J. Baker\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1346464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An entry in the Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties explaining the United States Supreme Court's decision in Schmerber v. California upholding the constitutionality of the compelled extraction of blood sample evidence from an arrestee as \\\"real\\\" evidence as opposed to a \\\"testimonial\\\" communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":361185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1346464\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1346464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
《公民自由百科全书》中的一个条目，解释了美国最高法院在Schmerber v. California一案中的裁决，该裁决维护了强制从被捕者身上提取血液样本证据作为“真实”证据的合宪性，而不是“证词”交流。
Case Comment: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 1996
An entry in the Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties explaining the United States Supreme Court's decision in Schmerber v. California upholding the constitutionality of the compelled extraction of blood sample evidence from an arrestee as "real" evidence as opposed to a "testimonial" communication.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
