Part A: Reading Comprehension

Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

Text 2

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.

The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to, say, going through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.

Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.

But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

26. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to

[A]

prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents. 

[B]

search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant. 

[C]

check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized. 

[D]

prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones. 

27. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of

[A]

disapproval. 

[B]

indifference. 

[C]

tolerance. 

[D]

cautiousness. 

28. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to

[A]

going through one’s wallet. 

[B]

handling one’s historical records. 

[C]

scanning one’s correspondences. 

[D]

getting into one’s residence. 

29. In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that

[A]

principles are hard to be clearly expressed. 

[B]

the court is giving police less room for action. 

[C]

phones are used to store sensitive information. 

[D]

citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected. 

30. Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that

[A]

the Constitution should be implemented flexibly. 

[B]

principles of the Constitution should never be altered. 

[C]

California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution. 

[D]

new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution. 

Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)

试题精解

26. [C] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.
【解析】细节题。第一段指出，最高法院现在将考虑“whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant... during an arrest”（警察在逮捕期间是否可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机内容）。C选项中的“without being authorized”（未经授权）正是对“without a warrant”的同义替换。B选项错在“search for mobile phones”（搜查手机本身），而原文是搜查手机的“contents（内容）”。

27. [A] disapproval.
【解析】态度题。作者在第三段指出：“如果法庭听从了加州的建议，那就太鲁莽、太保守了（recklessly modest）”。第四段更是直接说：“他们应该从抛弃加州蹩脚的论点（lame argument）开始...”。最后一段首句再次强调：“大法官们不应该全盘接受加州的论点（should not swallow... whole）”。这些用词（lame, recklessly modest）明确表达了作者对加州论点的“不赞成/反对（disapproval）”。

28. [D] getting into one’s residence.
【解析】细节推断题。第四段指出，探索智能手机的内容类似于翻查嫌疑人的钱包（这是加州的论点，被作者反驳）。作者明确表态：“But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home”（但是，探索一个人的智能手机更像是进入他或她的家）。D选项“getting into one's residence（进入某人的住所）”是对原文的精确同义替换。

29. [D] citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected.
【解析】段落推理题。第五段提到公民有权期望私人文件受到宪法保护，免受无理搜查。但第六段紧接着说：“申明这一原则并没有减轻划定界限的挑战（doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing）”，警察在某些紧急情况下仍然可以使第四修正案的保护失效（invalidate Fourth Amendment protections），甚至法庭可能还想给警察留出更多享有自由的空间。这字里行间流露出的担忧正是：“公民的隐私并没有得到有效的保护（is not effectively protected）”。

30. [D] new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
【解析】例证题。最后一段引用法学教授 Orin Kerr 的话，将 21 世纪数字信息的爆炸与 20 世纪汽车的普及作对比。引用的核心目的在于其后的冒号解释：“大法官们当时必须为私家车这个新的个人领域制定新规则（specify novel rules）；现在他们必须理清第四修正案如何适用（applies to）于数字信息”。这说明，面对“颠覆性的新技术”，我们需要对宪法保护进行“新颖的应用/重新解释（reinterpretation of the Constitution）”。D选项正确。

考研核心句型与长难句

【长难句剖析】

1. 动词的生动比喻与状语从句：
"The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice."
【解析】这里使用了一个极其精彩的矛盾修辞（oxymoron）：recklessly modest（鲁莽地谨慎/保守）。作者认为，如果法庭在面对数字隐私这种重大问题时选择退缩（modest），这种不作为本身就是对公民权利的不负责任（recklessly）。

2. 插入语与抽象名词的具体化：
"They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to, say, going through a suspect’s purse."
【解析】that 引导同位语从句，解释 argument 的内容。破折号中间的 a vast storehouse of digital information 是对 smartphone 的同位语解释。say 在此处作插入语，意为“比如说”。

3. 介词短语作状语及对比结构：
"Orin Kerr... compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th..."
【解析】句式主干为 compares A with B。将21世纪的“数字信息激增”与20世纪的“汽车成为生活必需品”相比较，论证法律必须随着新技术的出现而更新。