Long ago (1956) and in a place far away (Denver) there lived a Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent named Marsh. Agent Marsh had a paid confidential informant named Hereford who routinely supplied information regarding violations of the narcotic laws which Marsh found to be accurate and reliable.

　　一九五六年丹佛市的联邦禁毒署特工马什通过付费方式获得了一名名为赫拉夫德的机密级特情线人的情报，该名线人按常规提供涉及毒品犯罪的信息，马什发现其提供的情况一直很准确可靠（美国相关法律中线人分级为三级）。这次的情报称：“詹姆斯 德雷普以零包贩卖方式将毒品卖给瘾君子。德雷普已乘坐火车赶到了芝加哥，但是他会于九月八号或九月九号早晨携带三盎司海洛因返回丹佛。德雷普是黑人男性，脸部肤色偏淡棕色，二十七岁，五英尺八英寸高，大约一百六十磅重，穿浅色雨衣、棕色宽松便裤、棕色鞋子。德雷普将会携带一支棕黄色拉链包，他习惯走路走得相当快。”

　　Hereford provided Marsh with the following information: "James Draper peddles narcotics to addicts. Draper has gone to Chicago by train but will be returning on September 8th or 9th in the morning and will be carrying three ounces of heroin. Mr. Draper is a black male with light brown complexion, 27 years of age, 5 feet 8 inches tall, weighs about 160 pounds, is wearing a light colored raincoat, brown slacks and brown shoes. He will be carrying a tan zipper bag and habitually walks real fast."

　　九月八日早晨马什特工到达了火车站，他密切观察了所有到站的来自芝加哥的火车。但一无所获。而在九月九日早晨，马什特工看见一人，其生理特征完全符合情报描述而且衣着也十分精确地匹配，他也是从来自芝加哥的火车下车而且走路速度也十分地快。他也携带者一个棕黄色拉链包并且也穿着雨衣。马什与另一名警官将这名男子截停下并逮捕了他，警察对这名男子实施了搜查，查获了海洛因与注射器。

　　On September 8, Marsh went to the train station in the morning and watched all the trains coming from Chicago. No luck. But on the morning of September 9, Marsh saw a person, with the exact physical attributes and wearing the precise clothing, "alight" from an incoming Chicago train and start walking fast toward the exit. He was carrying a tan zipper bag and wearing a raincoat. Agent Marsh and a police officer stopped him, arrested him and searched him (finding heroin and a syringe).

　　Mr. Draper was convicted in federal district court and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court took the case and in it an opportunity to make three very positive statements about warrantless arrests. First, like our G.S. 15A-401(b)(1), the federal agents have a statute which authorizes them to make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed in their presence. While we may take such arrests for granted, it would be in the best interests of all law enforcement officers to review their arrest authority as established in G.S. 15A-401.

　　联邦地区法院确认德雷普有罪，联邦上诉法院维持了地区法院的裁判。联邦最高法院利用本案确立了三个关于无令状情况下的逮捕规则。其一，联邦特工有制定法上的授权允许他们在存在合理可能相信确有犯罪在联邦特工在场的场合下正在发生时，可以实施无令状的逮捕；在我们把这类逮捕看作理所当然之时，所有执法官员出于其自身最佳利益考虑，应当在规定于G.S. 15A-401条款范围内审视其逮捕职权。

　　Second, the Supreme Court made it very clear that you may use hearsay to establish probable cause in arrest and search situations. While hearsay evidence may generally not be admitted at a criminal trial (although there are certain exceptions), it may always be used to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest or search (as well as those with warrants). The test that magistrates and all courts in this state use to establish probable cause is the totality-of-the-circumstances test. This test authorizes the use of such hearsay information to establish probable cause. Never hesitate to use hearsay information to help establish probable cause. The most common use of hearsay is the confidential informant''s information used to establish probable cause to search a place for drugs.

　　其次，最高法院明确可以使用“间接听闻”作为事实依据并可以此依据建立起实施逮捕和搜查所需的“合理可能”。除了例外情况，一般在刑事审判中间接所闻证据不能作为定案证据使用；但是间接所闻的信息可以成为无令状逮捕和搜查所需的形成合理可能所需的事实和情势。因为，在判断是否形成“合理可能”时治安法官和所有的法院都要以“总体情势”作出考虑衡量。这就意味着允许依据间接所闻的信息建立起合理可能。而最常见的使用间接所闻信息即是在涉毒案件中使用机密线人提供的信息建立起合理可能并对场所实施为获取毒品的搜查。

　　Finally the Supreme court stated:

　　The information given to narcotic agent Marsh by "special employee" Hereford may have been hearsay to Marsh, but coming from one employed for that purpose and whose information had always been found accurate and reliable, it is clear that Marsh would have been derelict in his duties had he not pursued it. And when, in pursuing that information, he saw a man, having the exact physical attributes and wearing the precise clothing and carrying the tan zipper bag that Hereford had described, alight from one of the very trains from the very place stated by Hereford and start to walk at a "fast" pace toward the station exit, Marsh had personally verified every facet of the information given him by Hereford except whether petitioner had accomplished his mission and had the three ounces of heroin on his person or in his bag. And surely, with every other bit of Hereford''s information being thus personally verified, Marsh had "reasonable grounds" to believe that the remaining unverified bit of Hereford''s information -- that Draper would have the heroin with him -- was likewise true.

　　最高法院最后陈述道：

　　由“特别雇员”赫尔夫德提供给禁毒特工马什的信息属于间接听闻信息来自于负责专门调查目的线人而且内容一直准确可靠。如果马什特工不追踪这条信息无疑将会是一种失职。在追踪这条情况时特工确实看见了生理特征、衣着、随身携带物品、以及行动样态符合线人描述的对象，而且其所乘坐的交通工具的班次特征，出现在特定场所的时间地点也和预先得到的信息相吻合；也就是说，特工人员在追踪这条情报时确实本人验证了信息描述的方方面面，唯一未能验证的是嫌疑对象的行动使命目的以及是否随身携带了三盎司海洛因。由于特工已经亲身验证了其他的信息，马什特工已经获得了“合理的依据”相信线人情报中剩下的未能得到证实的部分很可能也是真实的，因此有合理可能相信嫌疑人确实也携带了毒品。

　　In dealing with probable cause, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.

　　在理解“合理可能”时我们确实在处理一个可能性问题。这是一个依据事实情况和考虑实际后得出的考量结果。关键在于，这是从一个普通的、谨慎的外行人的角度考虑，而不是从一个与法律相关的专业人士的角度考虑，衡量已掌握的事实和情势，一个执行逮捕的警官是否。换而言之，是以第三人的角度去看待处于调查和被调查关系中的警察和嫌疑人；依据当时双方的情况尤其是考虑警察当时对事实和情势已获得的细节了解程度，衡量是否能有至少50%可能性相信确有犯罪已经正在或即将发生。

　　This paragraph contains the essence of what probable cause is. First, note that the Supreme Court states that the simple fact that Agent Marsh corroborated or verified Hereford''s detailed information supplied probable cause. I cannot over-emphasize this: always take the time to personally verify as much of the information from a confidential or good-citizen informant as time and strategy will permit. The courts of this state appreciate personal verification by the affiant to a search or arrest warrant of the information provided by non-law enforcement personnel. You cannot help but enhance your credibility and strengthen your case by taking the time and effort to personally verify your information.

　　这段文字在内容上包含了什么是“合理可能”的本质。首先，要注意最高法院陈述道，特工马什补强并验证了线人赫尔夫德情报中的详细描述，正是这一事实提供了“合理可能”。因此警察必须花时间亲身去验证来自机密线人或是善良公民提供的情报信息，在时间和策略许可的条件下警察应当尽可能多的亲身验证其内容，无论如何强调这一点都不过分。亲身验证只会增加申请令状的可信性和力度。法院认为由作出宣誓存在“合理可能”并依此申请获得搜查令或是逮捕令的警官亲身去验证来自非法律执行人员提供的情报，法院认为这种做法十分值得推崇，这能加强申请令状时的可信度。

　　Next, you should pay close attention to the actual definition the court gives for probable cause... "probabilities...not technical...factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men...act." You use common sense to establish probable cause. There are no technical rules; just the same type of practical analysis of the situation you use everyday to make the countless decisions we all must make in our personal lives. You only need to establish a fair probability that a crime has occurred or that an item with a connection to a crime is in a place you want to search. This is generally much easier that many believe. Remember: you are dealing with common sense probability and not technical certainty.

　　其次，必须十分密切地注意法院给出的“合理可能”定义，这里“可能性”并不是从技术性上理解，而是考虑日常生活中一个合理审慎的人从实际和实用的角度考虑衡量后会如何行动。对于“合理可能”不存在技术性的规则，只需使用常识来建立这种“合理可能”。只是从普通人看来有犯罪发生或关于犯罪的物品正在某处，于是有必要进行搜查。这种可能性立足于日常生活经验的判断而非一种技术性工程式的确定性。
 
【作者简介】
蒋天伟，上海市人大常委会法律工作委员会任职。