The highest court in the US decided not to change a rule about police and race in Washington, D.C.

美國最高法院決定不更改華盛頓特區關於警察與種族的一項規則。

In 2020, police stopped a man named Donte J. Carter. They found a stolen gun. A lower court looked at this case. The court said police must think about a person's race. They said Black people often feel they cannot walk away from police.

在2020年，警察攔截了一名名為 Donte J. Carter 的男子。他們發現了一把贓槍。一個下級法院審理了此案。法院表示警察必須考慮一個人的種族。他們表示黑人經常覺得自己無法在警察面前走開。

This is a new rule. Before, the law used the same rule for every person. Now, the court uses a 'reasonable Black man' rule to see if the police stopped him legally.

這是一項新規則。在此之前，法律對每個人都使用相同的規則。現在，法院使用「合理黑人」規則來判斷警察攔截他是否合法。

Two judges, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, did not like this. They said the law must be the same for everyone. They believe the government should not use race to make legal rules.

兩位法官 Samuel Alito 和 Clarence Thomas 並不認同此舉。他們表示法律對每個人都應該是一樣的。他們認為政府不應該利用種族來制定法律規則。

The rule in Washington, D.C. stays the same. The court will not change it now.

華盛頓特區的規則維持不變。法院現在不會更改。

The United States Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case challenging a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling. This ruling allows racial identity to be considered when deciding if a police interaction is a legal 'seizure' under the law.

美國最高法院已決定不審理一起挑戰華盛頓特區上訴法院裁決的案件。該裁決允許在判定警察互動是否屬於法律定義下的「扣押」時，將種族身份納入考量。

The case began after a 2020 incident in Washington, D.C., involving Donte J. Carter. During an interaction where police asked Carter to change his clothes, officers found a stolen gun. The main legal argument is about exactly when the encounter became a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment, and whether the police had a reasonable suspicion to stop him at that moment.

本案始於 2020 年在華盛頓特區發生的一起涉及多恩特·J·卡特的事件。在一次警察要求卡特更換衣服的互動中，警員發現了一把盜搶槍支。法律爭議的核心在於，根據第四修正案，該接觸在確切什麼時間點變成了「扣押」，以及警察在該時刻是否有合理的懷疑來攔截他。

Usually, courts use a 'reasonable person' standard to decide if someone felt free to leave. However, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided that the defendant's race must be considered. The court emphasized that because of historical and social factors, Black Americans may trust the police less and feel less able to walk away from an encounter. Therefore, they created a 'reasonable Black man' standard to judge the situation.

通常法院使用「合理人士」標準來判定某人是否感到可以自由離開。然而，華盛頓特區上訴法院決定必須考慮被告的種族。法院強調，由於歷史和社會因素，美國黑人對警察的信任度較低，且感到較難從接觸中離開。因此，他們創建了一個「合理黑人男性」標準來判斷情況。

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disagreed with the Court's decision to ignore the case. Justice Alito asserted that using race-specific standards goes against the principle of a 'color-blind' Constitution. He argued that using group statistics to decide individual legal rights is dangerous and could force police to use different rules for different ethnic groups. Consequently, he described the D.C. court's approach as an illegal departure from the requirement that the government treat all people the same regardless of race.

大法官塞繆爾·阿利托和克拉倫斯·托馬斯不同意法院忽略本案的決定。阿利托大法官主張，使用特定種族的標準違背了憲法「色盲」原則。他認為使用群體統計數據來決定個人法律權利是危險的，且可能迫使警察對不同族群採取不同的規則。因此，他將華盛頓特區法院的做法描述為非法背離了政府無論種族必須平等對待所有人的要求。

Because the Supreme Court refused to review the case, the D.C. Court of Appeals' race-conscious standard will continue to be used in that specific area.

由於最高法院拒絕複核本案，華盛頓特區上訴法院的種族意識標準將繼續在該特定區域使用。

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling that incorporates racial identity into the determination of whether a police encounter constitutes a legal seizure.

美國最高法院已拒絕受理一項針對華盛頓特區上訴法院裁決的挑戰，該裁決將種族身份納入判定警方接觸是否構成合法拘留的考量之中。

The litigation originated from a 2020 incident in Washington, D.C., involving Donte J. Carter. Following an interaction in which officers requested that Carter adjust his attire, a stolen .40-caliber firearm was discovered. The central legal dispute concerns the temporal point at which the encounter transitioned into a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment, specifically whether the officers possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion mandated by Terry v. Ohio (1968) prior to the seizure.

此訴訟源於 2020 年在華盛頓特區發生的一起涉及 Donte J. Carter 的事件。在一次警員要求 Carter 調整衣著的接觸後，警方發現了一把被盜的 .40 口徑槍械。法律爭議的核心在於，根據第四修正案，此次接觸在何時轉變為「拘留」，特別是在拘留之前，警員是否具備 Terry v. Ohio (1968) 所要求的合理懷疑。

In a departure from the objective 'reasonable person' standard established in precedents such as United States v. Mendenhall (1980) and United States v. Drayton (2002), the D.C. Court of Appeals determined that the analysis must account for the defendant's race. The court reasoned that historical and social factors render Black Americans more distrustful of law enforcement and less likely to terminate police encounters, thereby necessitating a 'reasonable Black man' standard to assess the freedom to disengage.

華盛頓特區上訴法院採取了與 United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 及 United States v. Drayton (2002) 等先例中建立的客觀「合理人」標準不同的做法，判定分析必須考量被告的種族。法院認為，歷史與社會因素使得非裔美國人對執法部門更加不信任，且較不可能主動終止與警方的接觸，因此需要一個「合理黑人」標準來評估其是否具有脫離接觸的自由。

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued a dissent regarding the Court's refusal to intervene. Justice Alito posited that the adoption of race-specific standards contravenes the principle of a color-blind Constitution, citing Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Shaw v. Reno. He argued that the reliance on group statistics to determine individual legal status is precarious and could compel law enforcement to implement disparate procedural rules for various ethnic and racial demographics. Consequently, the dissent characterized the D.C. court's approach as an impermissible deviation from the requirement that government actors treat individuals without regard to race.

Samuel Alito 與 Clarence Thomas 法官針對法院拒絕介入一事發表了異議。Alito 法官指出，採用種族特定標準違反了「色盲憲法」原則，並引用了 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard 及 Shaw v. Reno 兩宗案件。他認為，依賴群體統計數據來決定個人法律地位是危險的，可能會迫使執法部門針對不同種族與族裔群體執行不同的程序規則。因此，異議部分將特區法院的做法形容為對政府行為人必須不分種族對待個人之要求的不可接受之偏差。

The Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari ensures that the D.C. Court of Appeals' race-conscious standard remains operative within that jurisdiction.

最高法院拒絕授予調卷令，確保了華盛頓特區上訴法院的種族意識標準在該司法管轄區內繼續生效。