词条 | Chavez v. Martinez |
释义 |
|Litigants=Chavez v. Martinez |ArgueDate=December 4 |ArgueYear=2002 |ReargueDate= |ReargueYear= |DecideDate=May 27 |DecideYear=2003 |FullName=Ben Chavez v. Oliverio Martinez |USVol=538 |USPage=760 |ParallelCitations=123 S. Ct. 1994; 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=1994–2005 |Majority= |Plurality=Thomas |JoinPlurality=Rehnquist (in full); O'Connor (Parts I and II-A); Scalia (Parts I and II) |Plurality2=Souter |JoinPlurality2=Breyer (Part I and II); Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg (Part II) |Concurrence2=Scalia (in judgment) |Concurrence/Dissent=Stevens |Concurrence/Dissent2=Kennedy |JoinConcurrence/Dissent2=Stevens (in full); Ginsburg (in part) |Concurrence/Dissent3=Ginsburg |LawsApplied= }} Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officerated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts. A complex series of concurrences and dissents were filed, many partially joined by various justices. Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the court, finding that no constitutional rights were violated. However, the only opinion to gain the votes of a majority of the court was Part II of Souter's concurrence, which consisted of a direction to the lower court to consider the substantive due process claims on remand. BackgroundIn 1997, during an altercation with the police in Oxnard, California, the respondent Martinez was shot five times. He was very seriously injured. The police officer's supervisor—the petitioner, Chavez—arrived at the scene around the same time as the paramedics. He rode in the ambulance with Martinez and accompanied him into the hospital. Throughout this time, Martinez was often conscious but in great distress, repeatedly stating that he was dying and requesting treatment. Without informing Martinez of his Miranda rights, Chavez sporadically interviewed Martinez about the incident over a period of 45 minutes. Martinez survived the incident, but was partially paralyzed and left blind.[1] He was never charged with a crime and his answers were never used against him in any criminal prosecution.[2] Martinez sued Chavez in a §1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated. The district court found that Chavez had violated at least two of Martinez's clearly established rights: the 5th Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself and his 14th Amendment right not to be subjected to coercive questioning. Because of this violation, the district court held that Chavez was not entitled to qualified immunity. The 9th Circuit affirmed this ruling. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari. OpinionJustice Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion. Fifth AmendmentThomas opinionThe Fifth Amendment requires that “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” We fail to see how, based on the text of the Fifth Amendment, Martinez can allege a violation of this right, since Martinez was never prosecuted for a crime, let alone compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.[3] References1. ^"permanently blinded and paralyzed from the waist down" Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 764 (2003) 2. ^Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 764 (2003) 3. ^1 2 3 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 766, 767 (2003) External links
| case = Chavez v. Martinez, {{ussc|538|760|2003|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/760/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep538/usrep538760/usrep538760.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1444{{authority control}} 4 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court|Miranda warning case law|2003 in United States case law |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。