I returned home to find police in my yard. I was taken back, I was really surprised.

我回到家，發現院子裡有警察。我被嚇了一跳，我真的很驚訝。

They then let me know they were looking for a suspect, my ex at the time.

然後他們讓我知道他們在找一個嫌疑人，我的前妻，當時。

I let them know that he was there earlier that morning, but I wasn't sure if he was

我讓他們知道那天早上他在那裡，但我不確定他是否在那裡

still in the home at the time.

當時還在家裡。

I gave the police my keys when they asked if they could go in and apprehend him.

我把鑰匙給了警察，他們問我能不能進去抓他。

They then asked me to leave the premises.

然後他們要求我離開這裡。

This is what she came back to.

這就是她回來的原因。

They just completely destroyed my house. I mean, I had a playpen near one of the windows

他們只是完全摧毀了我的房子。我的意思是，我有一個遊樂場附近的一個窗口。

and it was just full of glass.

而它只是充滿了玻璃。

Shaniz had expected the police to use her keys to check inside the house.

Shaniz本以為警察會用她的鑰匙在屋內檢查。

Instead, they called in a SWAT team, who shot tear gas through the windows.

相反，他們叫來了一支特警隊，他們通過窗戶射出催淚瓦斯。

Her ex, wasn't even there.

她的前夫，甚至不在那裡。

But the six-months pregnant Shaniz was left to clean up the tear gas residue and damage

但懷孕6個月的珊妮茲卻要清理殘留的催淚瓦斯和損壞的東西。

in a now unlivable home.

在一個現在無法居住的家中。

I was just immediately brought to tears.

我只是立刻就淚流滿面。

It was the first time of me even being on my own in my own house,

這是我第一次連自己的房子都是自己的。

and it was all taken away.

而這一切都被帶走了。

So she sued the police for the damages and unreasonable search and seizure,

於是她起訴警察，要求賠償損失和無理搜身。

arguing her consent to go inside the house did not mean she consented to them doing… this.

辯稱她同意進屋並不意味著她同意他們做... 這個。

The federal court agreed, saying, the police “exceeded the scope of the consent”

聯邦法院同意，說，警方 "超出了同意的範圍"

But they were still entitled to something called “qualified immunity.”

但他們仍有資格獲得所謂的 "有條件豁免權"。

Meaning, the police were off the hook, and Shaniz lost.

意思是說，警察脫罪了，山妮茲輸了。

Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits like hers.

合格豁免權保護政府官員免受像她這樣的訴訟。

It's one of the many police protections protesters of police brutality want to see reformed.

這是警察暴行的抗議者希望看到改革的許多警察保護措施之一。

And its future may hinge on the 2020 election.

而它的未來可能取決於2020年的選舉。

Qualified immunity is just that — immunity

有保留的豁免權就是豁免權。

— granted to government officials, like police officers,

- 授予政府官員，如警察；

when sued by regular people who feel their constitutional rights were violated by things

當被普通人起訴時，他們覺得自己的憲法權利被侵犯的事情

like excessive force or unreasonable search.

如過度武力或不合理的搜查。

For an officer to earn qualified immunity, it doesn't actually matter whether or not

官員要想獲得有條件的豁免權，其實並不重要。

someone's rights were violated.

有人的權利受到侵犯；

What matters is whether the police officer should have known they were violating that

重要的是，警察是否應該知道他們違反了這一點。

person's rights.

人的權利。

The idea stems from a 1980s Supreme Court decision, where the Court argued the “fear

這個想法源於20世紀80年代最高法院的一項判決，法院認為，"恐。

of being sued” might prevent the “unflinching discharge of their duties.”

被起訴 "可能會妨礙他們 "堅定不移地履行職責"。

So unless it was “clearly established” that a government official's actions were

是以，除非 "清楚地確定 "政府官員的行為是。

wrong, they can't be sued.

錯了，不能告他們。

The trouble with qualified immunity comes from how specifically the courts have interpreted

有條件豁免的問題來自於法院如何具體解釋 "有條件豁免"。

the “clearly established” as wrong part.

"明確規定 "為錯誤部分。

In 2016, a prison guard pepper sprayed a man in his cell for no reason — something he

2016年，一名獄警在牢房裡無緣無故地對一名男子噴灑胡椒粉--這是他

was given three months probation for.

被給予三個月的緩刑，原因是：

When he was sued by the man for the excessive force, he was given qualified immunity.

當他因用力過猛而被該男子起訴時，他獲得了合格的豁免權。

Court precedent had clearly established other similar actions as wrong, like punching or

法院的先例已明確規定其他類似的行為是錯誤的，如拳打腳踢或其他行為。

tasing for no reason.

無緣無故的追殺。

But no previous case had specifically condemned pepper spraying.

但此前沒有任何案例明確譴責噴灑胡椒粉的行為。

Therefore, the court says the officer couldn't have known it was wrong.

是以，法院說，該官員不可能知道這是錯的。

Shaniz's case played out in a similar way.

Shaniz的案子也是以類似的方式進行的。

Because “don't excessively deploy tear gas or destroy property

因為 "不要過度部署催淚瓦斯或破壞財產"。

when given consent to enter a home”

在得到同意進入住宅時"

isn't a specific police policy, and an officer hadn't successfully been

並不是一個具體的警察政策，而一個官員還沒有成功地被。

sued for that specific action in the past,

過去曾因該具體行動被起訴。

the officers were granted qualified immunity.

這些官員被授予有條件豁免權。

Before any of this happened, I had no idea what qualified immunity was.

在這些事情發生之前，我不知道什麼是合格的豁免權。

We turn law-abiding citizens into victims. That's not right.

我們把守法公民變成了受害者。這是不對的。

This strict interpretation of qualified immunity has some of

這種對有條件豁免的嚴格解釋有以下幾個方面：1.

today's Supreme Court Justices concerned that

當今最高法院的法官們擔心

“it tells officers that they can shoot first and think later.”

"它告訴官員，他們可以先開槍後思考。"

Last year, a Georgia officer was given immunity because

去年，佐治亞州的一名官員獲得了豁免權，原因是

“shooting a 10-year-old while attempting to shoot the non-threatening family dog”

"射殺一名10歲兒童，同時試圖射殺不具威脅性的家犬"

wasn't clearly established as wrong.

並沒有明確確定是錯誤的。

Nor was “Don't tase a pregnant woman for not signing a parking ticket.”

也不是 "不要因為孕婦不籤違章停車罰單就去打罵她"。

Or “Don't sic a canine on a person after they've already surrendered

或 "不要在人投降後，再把狗咬死"。

by sitting on the ground with their hands up.”

由坐在地上，雙手舉起。"

Although, “Don't sic a K-9 on a person after they've already surrendered

雖然，"不要在一個人投降後再把K-9犬交給他"。

by lying down” is actually an established precedent from an older case.

躺下 "其實是一個老案例的既定先例。

Qualified immunity makes it hard to set new precedent — because this officer wasn't

有條件的豁免權很難開創新的先例--因為這名官員並沒有。

successfully sued,

成功起訴。

the next officer to do this will also have qualified immunity. It's a catch-22.

下一個這樣做的官員也會有資格豁免權。這是個陷阱

These kinds of cases are why people arguing for police reform put ending qualified immunity

這類案件就是為什麼主張警察改革的人把終止有條件豁免權的原因

for police officers high on the list.

為警察高居榜首。

And, importantly, it's one of few police reforms the federal government can actually

而且，重要的是，它是少數幾個警察改革之一 聯邦政府實際上可以

make happen.

使咬。

There are thousands of different police departments in the US — around 18,000.

美國有數千個不同的警察部門，大約有18000個。

And different kinds of governments oversee them, with different levels of authority.

而不同類型的政府對其進行監督，權力大小不同。

Let's look at the Minneapolis Police Department for example,

我們以明尼阿波利斯警察局為例。

which is controlled by the city of Minneapolis.

它由明尼阿波利斯市控制。

If the city council wanted to make a change to the police department's budget, or change

如果市議會想對警察部門的預算進行修改，或者是修改

one of their rules

其一

— like when they're allowed to use tear gas, for example —

- 就像當他們被允許使用催淚瓦斯，例如 -

the city has that authority.

該市有這個權力。

Then there's the state of Minnesota, whose government can change laws

還有明尼蘇達州，政府可以修改法律。

— like requiring a public report of misconduct — that would affect all the police departments

- 比如要求公開報告不當行為--這將影響到所有的警察部門。

in the state, including Minneapolis.

在該州，包括明尼阿波利斯。

The federal government, of course, has oversight of all the states.

當然，聯邦政府對各州都有監督權。

If Congress passes a law, it applies to everyone.

如果國會通過一項法律，它適用於所有人。

But Congress doesn't have the authority to tell these states how to spend their money.

但國會沒有權力告訴這些州如何花錢。

And most changes to police policy rely directly on a police department's budget.

而大多數警察政策的改變直接依賴於警察部門的預算。

Congress can do things like influence states to make changes, like only giving out grant money

國會可以做一些事情，比如說影響各州做出改變，比如說只發補助金。

to states that report misconduct.

向報告不當行為的國家。

But they can't pass a law to make state police buy and wear body cameras or ban them

但他們不能通過法律讓州警察購買和佩戴防身攝像頭，也不能禁止他們這樣做

from carrying certain weapons.

攜帶某些武器；

Because these policies depend on money, and police departments are funded primarily by

因為這些政策要靠錢，而警察部門的經費主要來自於

these local and state governments.

這些地方和州政府。

it's really up to them to change the way police, police.

真的要靠他們改變警察的方式，警察。

Except when it comes to things that deal with constitutional rights, like qualified immunity.

除非是涉及到憲法權利的事情，比如合格的豁免權。

Because it was established in federal court,

因為它是在聯邦法院成立的。

only the federal government has the power to change it.

只有聯邦政府有權力改變它。

The Supreme Court could take up a case that involves it and rule to change the precedent.

最高法院可以受理涉及它的案件，並裁定改變先例。

Something several Justices have shown interest in but so far haven't acted on.

一些大法官已經表現出興趣，但至今沒有采取行動。

Congress also has the power to reform qualified immunity.

國會也有權力改革限定豁免權。

In June, the Democratic-held House of Representatives passed a bill that would limit it for police

6月，民主黨執政的眾議院通過了一項法案，將限制警察的

officers.

官員，

But it's not going to get a vote in the Republican-held Senate.

但在共和黨把持的參議院，它不會得到投票。

If a bill like this were to eventually get through Congress, it would need to get

如果這樣的法案最終要在國會通過，就需要得到

through the White House before it became law.

在成為法律之前，通過白宮。

And President Trump likely wouldn't sign it.

而特朗普總統很可能不會簽字。

“Whether they like it or not, you need immunity for the police.”

"不管他們願不願意，你都需要為警察提供豁免權。"

Presidential candidate Joe Biden, has included it as part of his police reform plan, as his

總統候選人喬-拜登，已將其列為他的警察改革計劃的一部分，作為他的。

running mate describes.

跑友描述。

“It's about reining in qualified immunity.”

"就是要控制合格的豁免權。"

It matches their general police reform stances: Trump wants to strengthen police protections,

這與他們一般的警察改革立場相吻合。特朗普希望加強對警察的保護。

while Biden wants to see more funding for community-based police and focus on reforming

而拜登則希望看到更多的資金用於社區警察，並注重改革。

the criminal justice system.

刑事司法系統；

The results of the 2020 election — both in Congress and the White House — could

2020年選舉的結果--無論是國會還是白宮--都可能是

in some ways determine the future of qualified immunity.

在某種程度上決定了有條件豁免的未來。

And ending or limiting the practice would result in more individual police officers

而終止或限制這種做法，將導致更多的警察個人

being held accountable for their unconstitutional actions.

為其違憲行為負責。

But local governments are primarily what fund the police, and control how they police.

但地方政府主要是為警察提供資金，並控制警察的方式。

So when it comes to police reform in general, you have to start looking at people running

所以說到一般的警察改革，你要開始看人跑了

further down the ballot.

再往下的選票。

Thanks for watching this episode in our 2020 election series.

感謝收看我們2020年選舉系列節目的這一集。

We did a call out asking you for what you think the candidates to be talking about

我們做了一個電話，詢問你認為候選人應該談論的內容

and this was one of your top responses.

而這是你的首要回應之一。

Joshua asked, “how do they plan to have actual change in the way the country is policed?”

約書亞問道："他們打算如何對國家的治安方式進行實際的改變？"

Maria-Anna asked, “what is going to happen with qualified immunity?”

瑪麗亞-安娜問道："有條件豁免權會怎麼樣？"

And Matthew said, “I believe both of the candidates need to more heavily address police reform;

而馬修說："我相信兩位候選人都需要更多地解決警察改革問題。

it is the most polarizing issue in our country no matter which side of the aisle you are on.”

這是最極化的問題 在我們國家，無論哪一方 你是在過道。"

But remember, if you're a US voter, the president isn't the only person on your ballot.

但請記住，如果你是美國選民，總統不是你選票上的唯一人選。

Your local elections can have a huge impact on daily life — so don't skip those!

你的地方選舉會對日常生活產生巨大的影響--所以不要跳過這些選舉!

We're still working on more episodes,

我們還在製作更多的劇集。

and we'd still like to know what you think the candidates should be talking about.

我們還是想知道你認為候選人應該談論什麼。

Tell us at Vox.com/ElectionVideos.

在Vox.com/ElectionVideos告訴我們。