It held that compulsory production of a persons

This preview shows page 13 - 15 out of 18 pages.

- It held that “compulsory production of [a person’s] private books and papers … is compelling him to be a witness against himself” in violation of the Fifth Amendment and “is the equivalent of … an unreasonable search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. - The Boyd Court arrived at its holding by reading the 4 th and 5 th Amendments together to create a broad right against “invasion of [the] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.” The Court saw little distinction between a subpoena and a physical search by police. United States v. Dionisio (1973) (subpoena usually not a search/seizure) In a gambling investigation prosecutors obtained recorded conversations, but needed to identify the speakers. The grand jury issued subpoenas to 20 subjects, ordering each to appear at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and give a voice sample which consisted of reading aloud the transcript of a recorded phone call. Dionisio objected on both Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds. - As for the Fifth Amendment, the Court held there was no compelled “testimony” because Dionisio was required only to display a “physical characteristic” (i.e. the sound of his voice) and not to provide any “testimonial content” (i.e. his thoughts or observations). - As for the Fourth Amendment claims, the Court began by noting that the subpoena raises two separate Fourth-Amendment questions: ( 1 ) Is the subpoena a “seizure” to the extent that it restrains a person’s liberty by requiring him to go somewhere he does not choose to go (i.e. to the grand jury or the prosecutor’s office)? And ( 2 ), is a subpoena for a voice exemplar a “search?” (1) A Subpoena Requiring a Person to Appear is Not a “Seizure” of the Person –Dionisio claimed that the government’s “dragnet” tactic of forcing numerous subjects to come to the prosecutor’s office amounted to a “seizure” of their persons. The Supreme Court said no, and gave two reasons: - First , history shows that every citizen has an obligation to appear and give his evidence when requested by the grand jury. - Second , as a practical matter, subpoenas are lesser intrusions on liberty than are police searches because:
o (i) searches are “abrupt” and forcible, whereas subpoenas allow the party time to consult counsel and raise objections; o (ii) police searches carry a “stigma” far greater than subpoenas; and o (iii) courts supervise the subpoena process more directly than police searches. (2) A Subpoena for a Voice is not a Search – The Court quoted the now-familiar privacy rational of Katz , “what a person knowingly exposes to the public” is not private and not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Hence a subpoena for a voice exemplar is not a “search” because the sound of a person’s voice is routinely exposed to the public. ***Because the subpoena did not amount to a search or a seizure, the Dionisio Court held, there was no reason to require probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to establish that it was “reasonable.”*** Summary of 4 th Amend. After Dionisio -

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture