作伪证:伪证宣誓书与第四修正案

S. Gard
{"title":"作伪证:伪证宣誓书与第四修正案","authors":"S. Gard","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.946476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this Article is to articulate appropriate legal doctrine to govern the problem of false statements of fact by law enforcement officers in warrant affidavits. This Article addresses the issue in the context of actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress such Fourth Amendment violations. This perspective promises to be interesting and unique for two reasons. First, the fact that the guilty are ordinarily the direct beneficiaries of the Fourth Amendment has long been a matter of grave concern. In contrast, rarely, if ever, will anyone except an innocent victim of a search based on a perjured warrant affidavit be able to maintain a successful action asserting this particular Fourth Amendment violation. Second, a police officer who files a false affidavit in support of a warrant application, unlike any other defendant in a § 1983 case, is not entitled to the protection of any of the immunity doctrines which protect police officers in most cases from legal liability.","PeriodicalId":82862,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University law review","volume":"41 1","pages":"445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bearing False Witness: Perjured Affidavits and the Fourth Amendment\",\"authors\":\"S. Gard\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.946476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this Article is to articulate appropriate legal doctrine to govern the problem of false statements of fact by law enforcement officers in warrant affidavits. This Article addresses the issue in the context of actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress such Fourth Amendment violations. This perspective promises to be interesting and unique for two reasons. First, the fact that the guilty are ordinarily the direct beneficiaries of the Fourth Amendment has long been a matter of grave concern. In contrast, rarely, if ever, will anyone except an innocent victim of a search based on a perjured warrant affidavit be able to maintain a successful action asserting this particular Fourth Amendment violation. Second, a police officer who files a false affidavit in support of a warrant application, unlike any other defendant in a § 1983 case, is not entitled to the protection of any of the immunity doctrines which protect police officers in most cases from legal liability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Suffolk University law review\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"445\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Suffolk University law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.946476\",\"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 review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.946476","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

本条的目的是阐明适当的法律原则,以管理执法人员在手令宣誓书中虚假陈述事实的问题。本条在根据《美国法典》第42编第1983条为纠正此类违反第四修正案的行为而提起的诉讼的背景下处理该问题。由于两个原因,这种视角注定是有趣和独特的。首先,罪犯通常是第四修正案的直接受益者这一事实长期以来一直是一个令人严重关切的问题。相比之下,除了基于伪证宣誓书的搜查的无辜受害者之外,很少有人能够成功地主张这一特定的违反第四修正案的行为。第二,与§1983案件中的任何其他被告不同,为支持搜查令申请而提交虚假宣誓书的警官无权受到在大多数情况下保护警察免于承担法律责任的任何豁免原则的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bearing False Witness: Perjured Affidavits and the Fourth Amendment
The purpose of this Article is to articulate appropriate legal doctrine to govern the problem of false statements of fact by law enforcement officers in warrant affidavits. This Article addresses the issue in the context of actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress such Fourth Amendment violations. This perspective promises to be interesting and unique for two reasons. First, the fact that the guilty are ordinarily the direct beneficiaries of the Fourth Amendment has long been a matter of grave concern. In contrast, rarely, if ever, will anyone except an innocent victim of a search based on a perjured warrant affidavit be able to maintain a successful action asserting this particular Fourth Amendment violation. Second, a police officer who files a false affidavit in support of a warrant application, unlike any other defendant in a § 1983 case, is not entitled to the protection of any of the immunity doctrines which protect police officers in most cases from legal liability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Planning for Law as a Career and an Enterprise Making Law with Lawsuits: Understanding Judicial Review in Campaign Finance Policy Promise and Private Law The Communist Party & the Law: An Outline of Formal and Less Formal Linkages between the Ruling Party and the Other Legal Institutions in the People's Republic of China Bearing False Witness: Perjured Affidavits and the Fourth Amendment
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1