论文部分内容阅读
美国宪法修正案第四条规定,人民享有身体、住所、文件及财物,不受国家不合理搜查与扣押,此项权利不得被任意侵犯。中国宪法第39条亦规定中华人民共和国公民的住宅不受侵犯,禁止非法搜查或者非法侵入公民的住宅。惟当警方利用缉毒犬协助侦查小区内有无种植大麻、藏匿毒品时,个人住家的隐私权便对上了公共利益。究竟缉毒犬的嗅查是否为宪法意义上的搜查?想象警方带着缉毒犬在一间民宅的门廊外走动,缉毒犬突然坐下,表示嗅查到毒品,警方据此申请搜查证入屋后扣押大量毒品,试问此所查获的证据是否应予排除?
Article 4 of the U.S. constitutional amendment stipulates that people shall enjoy their bodies, dwellings, documents and property without being unreasonably searched and seized by the state. Such rights shall not be arbitrarily infringed upon. Article 39 of the Chinese Constitution also stipulates that the houses of citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall not be infringed, and illegal searches or unlawful invasion of citizens’ dwellings shall be prohibited. However, when the police use narcotics dogs to help detect the presence or absence of cannabis cultivation in the community and shelter the drugs, the privacy rights of individual residents have a public interest. After all, whether the sniffing of narcotics dogs is a constitutional search? Imagine the police took the narcotics dogs and walked outside the porch of a private house. The narcotics dog sat down abruptly to express the sniff of drugs. Police applied for a search of the permit Seize a lot of drugs, ask whether the evidence seized should be excluded?