本文選題：米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則 + 夸爾斯案�。� 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 本文根據(jù)美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院涉及“公共安全”例外的重要判決和國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者的論文和專著研究,介紹米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則的“公共安全”例外的基本內(nèi)容、適用范圍、反對(duì)意見(jiàn)及后續(xù)發(fā)展,并主要采用判例研究的方法對(duì)“公共安全”例外在反恐案件中的擴(kuò)張適用進(jìn)行分析和評(píng)價(jià)。 米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則是美國(guó)法律中最具爭(zhēng)議的制度之一,它不僅在美國(guó)刑事司法制度中占據(jù)極其重要的地位,也引起了世界范圍內(nèi)的廣泛關(guān)注。自1966年美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院在米蘭達(dá)訴亞利桑那州案中創(chuàng)立米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則以來(lái),該規(guī)則就步入了褒貶不一、是非不斷的境地。當(dāng)時(shí),在該案中持反對(duì)意見(jiàn)的大法官們就預(yù)言,這一規(guī)則將損害甚至摧毀執(zhí)法部門長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)所使用的有效工具,尤其是,排除規(guī)則的貫徹執(zhí)行將大大減少被追訴人供述的數(shù)量,影響到對(duì)犯罪的控制,引起公眾不滿。面對(duì)這樣的社會(huì)壓力,聯(lián)邦最高法院的大法官們不得不對(duì)排除規(guī)則的適用施加限制,在司法判例中形成了大量的例外。其中,夸爾斯案(New Yorkv.Quarles)就是一個(gè)十分重要的標(biāo)志性判例。通過(guò)該判例,美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院確立了“米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則”的“公共安全”例外,即當(dāng)對(duì)公共安全的關(guān)心合理地促使警察提問(wèn)時(shí),即使犯罪嫌疑人被提問(wèn)前沒(méi)有收到“米蘭達(dá)警告”,他(她)所作的供述也可以被采納為證據(jù)。 本文共分四章: 第一章對(duì)“公共安全”例外產(chǎn)生的背景和基本內(nèi)容進(jìn)行了概述。首先簡(jiǎn)單回顧了米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則的產(chǎn)生和其引發(fā)的社會(huì)爭(zhēng)論以及對(duì)該規(guī)則的限制趨勢(shì),隨后介紹了夸爾斯案的基本案情和判決的基本內(nèi)容,而正是這一判決創(chuàng)造了米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則的“公共安全”例外。最后,筆者在研讀判決的基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)出“公共安全”例外的適用范圍,主要包括三點(diǎn):第一,存在現(xiàn)實(shí)的公共安全(包括警察自身和其他社會(huì)公眾的安全)隱患;第二,警察的訊問(wèn)行為需被客觀、合理地推定為出于考慮公共安全的動(dòng)機(jī);第三,根據(jù)當(dāng)時(shí)的緊急情況,訊問(wèn)犯罪嫌疑人是化解危機(jī)的唯一手段。 第二章介紹了“公共安全”例外創(chuàng)立之初的反對(duì)意見(jiàn)。主要從司法和學(xué)術(shù)兩個(gè)層面來(lái)介紹,包括:關(guān)于警察訊問(wèn)“強(qiáng)制性”的推定能否被否定;能否為“米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則”確立一個(gè)“公共安全”例外;是否應(yīng)當(dāng)排除非言詞證據(jù);該例外的適用范圍如何確定;等等。筆者在對(duì)這些不同意見(jiàn)進(jìn)行介紹和分析的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)“公共安全”例外的適用提出建議,希望聯(lián)邦最高法院在今后的判例中至少就以下幾個(gè)問(wèn)題作出解釋:怎樣才叫做對(duì)公共安全構(gòu)成威脅;威脅多大才能適用公共安全例外;警察實(shí)施了怎樣的行為才會(huì)排除該例外的適用。 第三章講述“公共安全”例外的后續(xù)發(fā)展。首先,通過(guò)聯(lián)邦最高法院的三個(gè)判例——邁卡蒂案、布克奈案和迪克森案——對(duì)“公共安全”例外的后續(xù)發(fā)展進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)單介紹,從這三個(gè)判例中,可以找到美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院應(yīng)用“公共安全”例外的一些線索。隨后,介紹了下級(jí)法院審判的幾個(gè)相關(guān)案例,包括布雷迪案、卡里案、柯林斯案和考克斯案,從這幾個(gè)案件中,可以明顯看出下級(jí)法院在模糊的適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之下對(duì)“公共安全”例外所進(jìn)行的擴(kuò)張適用。 第四章建議將米蘭達(dá)規(guī)則的“公共安全”例外擴(kuò)張適用到反恐案件當(dāng)中。“9·11”事件的發(fā)生對(duì)美國(guó)近年來(lái)的移民政策、法律實(shí)施與安全法規(guī)產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)的影響。原本將于2005年10月期滿失效的《愛(ài)國(guó)者法案》在2005年7月21日的美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)眾議院投票表決中再度被批準(zhǔn)。然而,由于該法案的實(shí)施極易導(dǎo)致政府權(quán)力的濫用和對(duì)人權(quán)的侵犯,引起美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)和國(guó)際社會(huì)的廣泛批評(píng),至此,“美籍塔利班”案件給美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院帶來(lái)了新的法律議題。筆者建議在這類案件中適用“公共安全”例外,即把恐怖主義活動(dòng)視為威脅公共安全的緊急情況,可以在不進(jìn)行米蘭達(dá)警告的情況下對(duì)其進(jìn)行訊問(wèn),由此得到的供述仍然具有可采性,從而在保護(hù)國(guó)家安全和防止行政權(quán)力濫用之間達(dá)到平衡。
[Abstract]:This paper introduces the basic contents , the scope of application , the objection and the follow - up of the " public security " exception of Miranda rule according to the important judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the exception of " public security " and the author ' s thesis and special study , and mainly adopts the method of case study to analyze and evaluate the extension of " public security " exception in counter - terrorism cases .



The Miranda rule is one of the most controversial regimes in the U.S . law , which not only occupies an extremely important position in the U.S . criminal justice system , but also gives rise to widespread attention in the world . In the case , the Supreme Court of the Federal Supreme Court predicted that the rule would undermine or even destroy the effective tools used by law enforcement authorities for a long time . In particular , the Supreme Court of the Federal Supreme Court has had to impose restrictions on the application of the exclusion rule . In particular , the Supreme Court of the Federal Supreme Court has had to impose restrictions on the application of the exclusion rule , which , even if the suspect was questioned , did not receive the Miranda warning , and the statement made by him ( she ) could also be adopted as evidence .



This article is divided into four chapters :



Chapter One gives an overview of the background and basic contents of the exception of " public security " . Firstly , the author briefly reviews the emergence of Miranda rule and the social disputes caused by it and the restrictions on the rules , and then introduces the basic contents of the rules of public security .



The second chapter introduces the objection to the establishment of the " public security " exception . It is mainly introduced from the judicial and academic levels , including : whether the presumption of " mandatory " of the police questioning can be negated ; whether it can establish a " public security " exception for the " Miranda rule " ; whether it should exclude non - verbal evidence ; whether it is called " public security " should be ruled out ; and so on .



The third chapter is about the follow - up development of the " public security " exception . First , through the three cases of the Supreme Court of the Federal Supreme Court , the case of Mekati , the Bokay case and the Dixon ' s case , we can find some clues to the application of the " public security " exception in the Supreme Court of the United States . Then , several relevant cases of the lower court trial , including the Bregi case , the Carri case , the Collins case and the Cox case , can be found . From these cases , it can be seen that the lower court applies to the expansion of the " public security " exception under the vague application standard .



Chapter IV proposes to apply the Miranda rule ' s " public security " exception to counter - terrorism cases . The " 9 路 11 " incident has a far - reaching impact on U.S . immigration policy , legal enforcement and security legislation in recent years . However , the application of the " public security " exception to the U.S . Federal Supreme Court in October 2005 has brought new legal issues to the U.S . Federal Supreme Court .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 牟軍;重溫與新知:美國(guó)非法自白規(guī)則之定位[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2004年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1745951