英语六级
单选题根据下面资料，回答题
A. The Supreme Court unambiguously ruled Wednesday that privacy rights are not sacrificed to 21 st century technology, saying unanimously that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching the cell phone of someone they arrest.
B. Modern cell phones "hold for many Americans the privacies of life," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a court united behind the opinion's expansive language. "The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought." Roberts said that in most cases when police seize a cell phone from a suspect, the answer is simple: "Get a warrant."
C. The ruling has no impact on National Security Agency data collection programs revealed in the past year or law enforcement use of aggregated digital information. But lawyers involved in those issues said the emphatic declarations signaled the justices' interest in the dangers of government overreach.
D. During oral arguments, the justices seemed divided over the issue. But they united behind soaring language from Roberts about privacy concerns in the digital era in which 90 percent of Americans carry cell phones containing sensitive information. "The term 'cell phone' is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone," Roberts wrote. "They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers."
E. The court is often criticized for being behind the times in considering technological advances. But Roberts's opinion was filled with unpleasant facts--"the average smart phone user has installed 33 applications, which together can form a revealing montage(蒙太奇)of the user's life"--and concerns about modem innovations such as cloud computing--"cell phone users often may not know whether particular information is stored on the device or in the cloud."
F. Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford law professor who argued on behalf of a defendant who said the search violated his constitutional fight to be free of unreasonable searches, praised the ruling. "The decision brings the Fourth Amendment into the digital age," Fisher said. "The core of the decision is that digital information is different. It triggers privacy concerns far more profound than ordinary physical objects."
G. Ellen Canale, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department will work with law enforcement to ensure that the court's decision is implemented. "Our commitment to vigorously enforcing the criminal laws and protecting the public while respecting the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment is unwavering," she said.
H. In general, warrants are required for searches, but the court's precedents have said that a person's privacy expectations shrink considerably after an arrest. Police may protect themselves and others by searching the arrestee for weapons or securing evidence that might be destroyed.
I. Roberts said he "cannot deny" that the decision will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. "Privacy comes at a cost," he wrote. But he said police can use their own technology to ensure that the information on cell phones that might contain critical evidence is not erased or lost. He also said there could be "case-specific" exceptions to the warrant rule. The court in the past had approved searching many objects found on a suspect, Roberts noted, including a cigarette pack found to have contained drugs. But allowing them to search a cell phone is very close to ransacking a person's home, he said.
J. "Indeed, a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form," he said. For instance: "Past location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone's specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building."
K. He said technology also makes it easier for law enforcement to secure approval from a judge that a search is justified. Canale said the Justice Department would work on that "We will make use of whatever technology is available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining when urgent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the phone immediately without a warrant," she said.
L. Justice Samuel A. Alito put in an opinion approving the judgment, despite reservations about what it might mean for law enforcement. He also urged legislatures and Congress to get involved. "Many forms of modern technology are making it easier and easier for both government and private entities to collect a great amount of information about the lives of ordinary Americans, and at the same time, many ordinary Americans are choosing to make public much information that was seldom revealed to outsiders just a few decades ago," Alito wrote. "In light of these developments, it would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment."
M. The court ruling came in the consideration of two cases in which lower courts arrived at different conclusions.
N. One involved Brima Wurie, who was picked up in Boston on suspicion of selling cocaine in 2007. While he was in police custody, his phone kept receiving calls from a number identified as "my house." Using the telephone number and a reverse directory, police located his address, obtained a warrant to search his home, and found cocaine, marijuana (大麻)and a weapon. In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals threw out the evidence against Wurie. The majority support a rule that said warrantless cell phone data searches are "categorically unlawful," given the "government' s failure to demonstrate that they are ever necessary to promote officer safety or prevent the destruction of evidence."
O. A ease from California went the other way. David Leon Riley was pulled over in 2009 by a San Diego police officer for an expired car registration. Police quickly discovered that Riley's driver's license was suspended and later found guns under the car's hood. Police also examined his smart phone and found language that led them to believe Riley had gang connections. A photograph on the phone linked him to a car that police said had been used to flee a shooting. Riley was accused of murder and other charges, convicted, and sentenced to more than 15 years in prison. A California court approved the officers' actions, and similar conflicting decisions have been recorded across the country.
A case in which the court support the officers´ actions of searching the cellphone of the suspect without a warrant.
A. The Supreme Court unambiguously ruled Wednesday that privacy rights are not sacrificed to 21 st century technology, saying unanimously that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching the cell phone of someone they arrest.
B. Modern cell phones "hold for many Americans the privacies of life," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a court united behind the opinion's expansive language. "The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought." Roberts said that in most cases when police seize a cell phone from a suspect, the answer is simple: "Get a warrant."
C. The ruling has no impact on National Security Agency data collection programs revealed in the past year or law enforcement use of aggregated digital information. But lawyers involved in those issues said the emphatic declarations signaled the justices' interest in the dangers of government overreach.
D. During oral arguments, the justices seemed divided over the issue. But they united behind soaring language from Roberts about privacy concerns in the digital era in which 90 percent of Americans carry cell phones containing sensitive information. "The term 'cell phone' is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone," Roberts wrote. "They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers."
E. The court is often criticized for being behind the times in considering technological advances. But Roberts's opinion was filled with unpleasant facts--"the average smart phone user has installed 33 applications, which together can form a revealing montage(蒙太奇)of the user's life"--and concerns about modem innovations such as cloud computing--"cell phone users often may not know whether particular information is stored on the device or in the cloud."
F. Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford law professor who argued on behalf of a defendant who said the search violated his constitutional fight to be free of unreasonable searches, praised the ruling. "The decision brings the Fourth Amendment into the digital age," Fisher said. "The core of the decision is that digital information is different. It triggers privacy concerns far more profound than ordinary physical objects."
G. Ellen Canale, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department will work with law enforcement to ensure that the court's decision is implemented. "Our commitment to vigorously enforcing the criminal laws and protecting the public while respecting the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment is unwavering," she said.
H. In general, warrants are required for searches, but the court's precedents have said that a person's privacy expectations shrink considerably after an arrest. Police may protect themselves and others by searching the arrestee for weapons or securing evidence that might be destroyed.
I. Roberts said he "cannot deny" that the decision will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. "Privacy comes at a cost," he wrote. But he said police can use their own technology to ensure that the information on cell phones that might contain critical evidence is not erased or lost. He also said there could be "case-specific" exceptions to the warrant rule. The court in the past had approved searching many objects found on a suspect, Roberts noted, including a cigarette pack found to have contained drugs. But allowing them to search a cell phone is very close to ransacking a person's home, he said.
J. "Indeed, a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form," he said. For instance: "Past location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone's specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building."
K. He said technology also makes it easier for law enforcement to secure approval from a judge that a search is justified. Canale said the Justice Department would work on that "We will make use of whatever technology is available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining when urgent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the phone immediately without a warrant," she said.
L. Justice Samuel A. Alito put in an opinion approving the judgment, despite reservations about what it might mean for law enforcement. He also urged legislatures and Congress to get involved. "Many forms of modern technology are making it easier and easier for both government and private entities to collect a great amount of information about the lives of ordinary Americans, and at the same time, many ordinary Americans are choosing to make public much information that was seldom revealed to outsiders just a few decades ago," Alito wrote. "In light of these developments, it would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment."
M. The court ruling came in the consideration of two cases in which lower courts arrived at different conclusions.
N. One involved Brima Wurie, who was picked up in Boston on suspicion of selling cocaine in 2007. While he was in police custody, his phone kept receiving calls from a number identified as "my house." Using the telephone number and a reverse directory, police located his address, obtained a warrant to search his home, and found cocaine, marijuana (大麻)and a weapon. In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals threw out the evidence against Wurie. The majority support a rule that said warrantless cell phone data searches are "categorically unlawful," given the "government' s failure to demonstrate that they are ever necessary to promote officer safety or prevent the destruction of evidence."
O. A ease from California went the other way. David Leon Riley was pulled over in 2009 by a San Diego police officer for an expired car registration. Police quickly discovered that Riley's driver's license was suspended and later found guns under the car's hood. Police also examined his smart phone and found language that led them to believe Riley had gang connections. A photograph on the phone linked him to a car that police said had been used to flee a shooting. Riley was accused of murder and other charges, convicted, and sentenced to more than 15 years in prison. A California court approved the officers' actions, and similar conflicting decisions have been recorded across the country.
A case in which the court support the officers´ actions of searching the cellphone of the suspect without a warrant.
参考答案：O进入在线模考
A.周三，最高法院明确判定隐私权不会成为21世纪科技的牺牲品，一致说道一般情况下警察在搜查被捕者的手机之前必须要有搜查令。
B.现代手机“掌握了许多美国人生活中的隐私”，大法官小约翰·罗伯茨在给法庭的信中写到，法庭在这一观点的有力语言下达成一致意见。“现代科技使人们可以把这些信息拿在手里，并没有使这些信息不值得保护，而保护它正是开国先贤们奋力斗争的目的”。罗伯茨说在大部分情况下，当警方弄到嫌疑人的手机时，回答很简单：“拿出搜查令”。
C.过去几年或执法时用到的收集的电子信息表明这项裁决对于国家安全局信息采集项目没有影响。但是参与这些议题的律师们认为这样具有强调意味的宣判表明了司法会留心政府的越权行为。
D.在口头辩论中，法官们对于这一议题持不同意见。但是他们在罗伯茨雄辩——百分之九十的美国人都手持载有他们敏感信息的手机，我们必须关注电子时代的隐私问题——下达成一致。“‘手机’这个名称是一个误导人的简称。这些装置大部分是迷你电脑，恰好拥有电话的功能。”罗伯茨写到。“它们也可以被称为相机、视频播放器、日历、录音机、图书馆、日记、专辑、电视、地图或是报纸。”
E.法庭一直被批评在考虑科技发展时落后于时代。但是罗伯茨的观点也包含着诸多令人不安的事实——“智能手机所有者平均给每部手机装载有33个应用软件，这些软件加在一起可以形成一个反映手机使用者生活的电影蒙太奇”——而且还有有关现代发明例如云计算的担心——“手机使用者一般不清楚某个信息是存在设备里还是存在云端里”。
F.斯坦福大学法律学教授杰弗瑞·菲舍代表被告争辩说搜查侵犯了被告的宪法权利，即不受无理搜查的权利，并赞颂了这项判决。“这项决定把第四条修正案带到了电子时代”，菲舍说，“这项决定的关键在于电子信息与众不同。它涉及的隐私比其他任何实物都深远。”
G.司法部的女发言人艾伦·康莱尔说司法部会与执法机构一起协作保证最高法院决议的执行。她说道：“我们对于既坚决执行刑法。保护公众，又尊重受到第四修正案保护的隐私权益的决心不会动摇。”
H.一般而言，搜查需要出示搜查令。但是法院也有前例显示个人的隐私期望值在被捕后会大打折扣，警察为了自己和他人的安全或是为了保证证据不被销毁会搜查被捕者。
I.罗伯茨说他“无法否认”这项决定会对依法打击犯罪的能力产生影响。他写到“保护隐私需要代价”。但是他说警察也可以用自己的技术保证手机上包含关键证据的信息不被删除或丢失。他也说道，搜查令法则也可以“特例”。法院在过去也同意在嫌疑人身上搜很多东西，罗伯茨指出当中包括藏着毒品的香烟盒。他说，但是允许他们搜手机就像洗劫一个人的家。
J.他说：“真的是这样，搜查手机向政府暴露的信息比最彻底的搜家都多：手机不仅以电子形式保存了许多之前在家里搜到的敏感记录，它还保存了大量你永远不可能在家里搜到的私人信息。”例如“记录你去过的地点是许多智能手机的标准特性，这可以精确到分钟重建你的行踪，不只是在哪一块，而是可以精确到某个大楼的内部。”
K.他说科技也使执法者更容易从法官那里获得许可使搜查合法。康莱尔说司法部会在这方面努力。她说：“我们会运用科技提供的一切方法在申请搜查令的同时确保手机上的证据不被删除，我们也会协助我们的部门决定在紧急情况下．或是符合搜查令要求的特例时允许在没有搜查令的情况下即刻搜查手机，”
L.尽管法官塞缪尔·A．阿利托还有顾虑这会对执法意味着什么，但是他还是提交了意见赞同这项判决，他同时敦促立法和国会方面也参与其中。“现代科技使政府和私人团体更加轻松地搜集到大量有关普通美国人生活的信息。同时很多普通美国人选择公布很多在几十年前不会公布的信息，”阿利托写到，“这样看来，如果在21世纪保护隐私全部依赖联邦法院用第四修正案这种笨拙的方式就太不幸了。”
M.最高法院的判决主要是考虑到下级法院针对两起案件给了不同的判决。
N.布黎曼．乌瑞尔曾涉及这种境况，他在2007年因涉嫌贩卖可卡因在波士顿被捕。在警方拘留期间，他的手机不断接收到一个名为“我家”的电话，通过这个号码和反目录搜索，警方找到了他的老巢，在得到搜查他家的搜查令后，警方发现了可卡因、大麻和一件武器。在二比一的决定下，一组美国上诉法庭把这些指证乌瑞尔证据定性为无效。考虑到“政府”无法证明手机搜查在促进警官安全和防止证据不被销毁方面是永远必需的。大部分人支持认为没有搜查令的手机搜查得到的数据是“断然不合法的”这一判决。
O.而加利福尼亚的案件却恰恰相反，大卫·理莱在2009年被一位圣地亚哥警察因为过期的车辆登记而逮捕，警方很快发现理莱的驾照被吊销了，并在他车子的引擎盖下发现了枪支。警方也检查了他的手机并发现了他们认为其与帮派有关联的语言。手机上的一张照片把他与一辆车联系起来，警方说这辆车曾被用来逃离枪击。理莱被指控谋杀和其他的罪行，定了罪，被判刑十五年以上。一个加利福尼亚的法院支持警方的行为。与这相似的矛盾判决在全国都有记录。
此句意为 “在一起案件里法院支持警察在没有搜查令的情况下搜查嫌疑人的手机”，根据题干中的the court supportthe omcers’ actions可以定位到O段中A California court upheld the officers’ actions(一个加利福尼亚的法院支持警方的行为)，二者意思相同。因此，正确答案是O。
B.现代手机“掌握了许多美国人生活中的隐私”，大法官小约翰·罗伯茨在给法庭的信中写到，法庭在这一观点的有力语言下达成一致意见。“现代科技使人们可以把这些信息拿在手里，并没有使这些信息不值得保护，而保护它正是开国先贤们奋力斗争的目的”。罗伯茨说在大部分情况下，当警方弄到嫌疑人的手机时，回答很简单：“拿出搜查令”。
C.过去几年或执法时用到的收集的电子信息表明这项裁决对于国家安全局信息采集项目没有影响。但是参与这些议题的律师们认为这样具有强调意味的宣判表明了司法会留心政府的越权行为。
D.在口头辩论中，法官们对于这一议题持不同意见。但是他们在罗伯茨雄辩——百分之九十的美国人都手持载有他们敏感信息的手机，我们必须关注电子时代的隐私问题——下达成一致。“‘手机’这个名称是一个误导人的简称。这些装置大部分是迷你电脑，恰好拥有电话的功能。”罗伯茨写到。“它们也可以被称为相机、视频播放器、日历、录音机、图书馆、日记、专辑、电视、地图或是报纸。”
E.法庭一直被批评在考虑科技发展时落后于时代。但是罗伯茨的观点也包含着诸多令人不安的事实——“智能手机所有者平均给每部手机装载有33个应用软件，这些软件加在一起可以形成一个反映手机使用者生活的电影蒙太奇”——而且还有有关现代发明例如云计算的担心——“手机使用者一般不清楚某个信息是存在设备里还是存在云端里”。
F.斯坦福大学法律学教授杰弗瑞·菲舍代表被告争辩说搜查侵犯了被告的宪法权利，即不受无理搜查的权利，并赞颂了这项判决。“这项决定把第四条修正案带到了电子时代”，菲舍说，“这项决定的关键在于电子信息与众不同。它涉及的隐私比其他任何实物都深远。”
G.司法部的女发言人艾伦·康莱尔说司法部会与执法机构一起协作保证最高法院决议的执行。她说道：“我们对于既坚决执行刑法。保护公众，又尊重受到第四修正案保护的隐私权益的决心不会动摇。”
H.一般而言，搜查需要出示搜查令。但是法院也有前例显示个人的隐私期望值在被捕后会大打折扣，警察为了自己和他人的安全或是为了保证证据不被销毁会搜查被捕者。
I.罗伯茨说他“无法否认”这项决定会对依法打击犯罪的能力产生影响。他写到“保护隐私需要代价”。但是他说警察也可以用自己的技术保证手机上包含关键证据的信息不被删除或丢失。他也说道，搜查令法则也可以“特例”。法院在过去也同意在嫌疑人身上搜很多东西，罗伯茨指出当中包括藏着毒品的香烟盒。他说，但是允许他们搜手机就像洗劫一个人的家。
J.他说：“真的是这样，搜查手机向政府暴露的信息比最彻底的搜家都多：手机不仅以电子形式保存了许多之前在家里搜到的敏感记录，它还保存了大量你永远不可能在家里搜到的私人信息。”例如“记录你去过的地点是许多智能手机的标准特性，这可以精确到分钟重建你的行踪，不只是在哪一块，而是可以精确到某个大楼的内部。”
K.他说科技也使执法者更容易从法官那里获得许可使搜查合法。康莱尔说司法部会在这方面努力。她说：“我们会运用科技提供的一切方法在申请搜查令的同时确保手机上的证据不被删除，我们也会协助我们的部门决定在紧急情况下．或是符合搜查令要求的特例时允许在没有搜查令的情况下即刻搜查手机，”
L.尽管法官塞缪尔·A．阿利托还有顾虑这会对执法意味着什么，但是他还是提交了意见赞同这项判决，他同时敦促立法和国会方面也参与其中。“现代科技使政府和私人团体更加轻松地搜集到大量有关普通美国人生活的信息。同时很多普通美国人选择公布很多在几十年前不会公布的信息，”阿利托写到，“这样看来，如果在21世纪保护隐私全部依赖联邦法院用第四修正案这种笨拙的方式就太不幸了。”
M.最高法院的判决主要是考虑到下级法院针对两起案件给了不同的判决。
N.布黎曼．乌瑞尔曾涉及这种境况，他在2007年因涉嫌贩卖可卡因在波士顿被捕。在警方拘留期间，他的手机不断接收到一个名为“我家”的电话，通过这个号码和反目录搜索，警方找到了他的老巢，在得到搜查他家的搜查令后，警方发现了可卡因、大麻和一件武器。在二比一的决定下，一组美国上诉法庭把这些指证乌瑞尔证据定性为无效。考虑到“政府”无法证明手机搜查在促进警官安全和防止证据不被销毁方面是永远必需的。大部分人支持认为没有搜查令的手机搜查得到的数据是“断然不合法的”这一判决。
O.而加利福尼亚的案件却恰恰相反，大卫·理莱在2009年被一位圣地亚哥警察因为过期的车辆登记而逮捕，警方很快发现理莱的驾照被吊销了，并在他车子的引擎盖下发现了枪支。警方也检查了他的手机并发现了他们认为其与帮派有关联的语言。手机上的一张照片把他与一辆车联系起来，警方说这辆车曾被用来逃离枪击。理莱被指控谋杀和其他的罪行，定了罪，被判刑十五年以上。一个加利福尼亚的法院支持警方的行为。与这相似的矛盾判决在全国都有记录。
此句意为 “在一起案件里法院支持警察在没有搜查令的情况下搜查嫌疑人的手机”，根据题干中的the court supportthe omcers’ actions可以定位到O段中A California court upheld the officers’ actions(一个加利福尼亚的法院支持警方的行为)，二者意思相同。因此，正确答案是O。
你可能感兴趣的试题
最新试题
中国的龙是中国神话和民间故事里传说的生物。龙有许多动物的特征，例如龟、鱼等。但是，大多情况下龙被描绘成长着四只脚的蛇形动
类型：简答题2017-06-10
It is implied that, in the long run, most Latinos in A
类型：单选题2017-06-10
According to the author, Arizona should give highest p
类型：单选题2017-06-10
The underlined part "educational deficits" (Para.4)&nb
类型：单选题2017-06-10
What can be inferred from the third paragraph?
类型：单选题2017-06-10
Questions are based on the following passage. Latino youths
类型：单选题2017-06-10
Which of the following can best summarize the main idea of t
类型：单选题2017-06-10
It can be inferred from the last two paragraphs that __
类型：单选题2017-06-10
Ethan Kross´s 2013 study failed to find __
类型：单选题2017-06-10
What does the phrase "this problem" in Paragraph 3 refer to?
类型：单选题2017-06-10