Document: 410 U.S. 1 93 S.Ct. 764 35 L.Ed.2d 67 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Antonio DIONISIO. No. 71—229. Argued Nov. 6, 1972. Decided Jan. 22, 1973. Syllabus A grand jury subpoenaed about 20 persons, including respondent, to give voice exemplars for identification purposes. Respondent, on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds, refused comply. The District Court rejected both claims adjudged respondent in contempt. of Appeals agreed rejecting respondent's claim but reversed the ground that required a preliminary showing reasonableness before witness could be compelled furnish exemplar here proposed 'seizures' would unreasonable because large number witnesses produce exemplars. Held: 1. production not violate privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, since they were used only purposes, testimonial or communicative content utterances. Pp. 5—7. 2. Respondent's is also invalid. 8 18. (a) subpoena compel person appear does constitute 'seizure' within meaning Amendment, fact many others besides ordered recordings did render unconstitutional. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 721, 89 1394, 22 676, distinguished. 8—13. (b) jury's directive make recording infringed no valid interest. 13—15. (c) Since neither summons jury, nor its contravened erred requiring exemplar. 15—16. 442 F.2d 276, remanded. Philip A. Lacovara, New York City, petitioner. John Powers Crowley, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. special was convened Northern Illinois February 1971, investigate possible violations federal criminal statutes relating gambling. In course investigation, received evidence certain had been obtained pursuant court orders.1 2 approximately Dionisio, seeking obtain from them comparison with recorded conversations evidence. Each advised he potential defendant prosecution. asked examine transcript an intercepted conversation, go nearby office United States Attorney read into device. allowed have their attorneys present when transcripts. Dionisio other exemplars, asserting these disclosures rights under Amendments. 3 Government then filed separate petitions jury. stated 'essential necessary' 'be solely as standard order determine whether whose . ..' 4 Following hearing, Judge witnesses' constitutional arguments comply request. He reasoned like handwriting fingerprints, evidence, consequently any testify himself. found there violation, itself involve search seizure proscription Amendment: 5 'The are lawfully subpoena. prohibition applies where identifying physical characteristics, such result unlawful detention suspect, intrusion body, blood test, undertaken without warrant, absent emergency situation. E.g., 724—728 (89 1396—1398, 676;) (1969); Schmerber California, 384 757, 770—771 (86 1826, 1835—1836, 16 908.) (1966).'2 6 When persisted his refusal respond directive, him civil contempt committed custody until obeyed order, expiration 18 months.3 7 Seventh Circuit reversed. 276. It claims,4 concluded Amendment. court's view, 'seeking by use powers probable cause exist arrest some other, less unusual, method compelling exemplars.' Id., at 280. applied process, 'under fourth amendment law enforcement officials may seizure. 676 Ibid. this held it error admit petitioner's fingerprints trial rape, during police following lawless wholesale roundup petitioner more than youths. Equating procedures followed case fingerprint detentions Davis, '(t)he dragnet effect here, twenty persons purposes identification, has same invidious practice condemned Davis.' 281. 9 view clear conflict between decision one Second Circuit,5 we granted Government's petition certiorari. 406 956, 92 2056, 32 343. 10 * correctly contention long display identifiable characteristics infringes interest protected self-incrimination. Holt States, 218 245, 252, 31 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021, Holmes, writing Court, dismissed 'extravagant extension Amendment' argument violated require put blouse explained 'the man himself moral compulsion extort communications him, exclusion body material.' 252—253, S.Ct., 6. 11 More recently, 86 908, relied Holt, noted that: 12 '(B)oth state courts usually (the privilege) offers protection submit fingerprinting, photographing, measurements, write speak court, stand, assume stance, walk, particular gesture. distinction which emerged, often expressed different ways, bar 'communications' 'testimony,' makes suspect accused source 'real evidence' it.' 764, 1832 (footnote omitted). 13 extraction chemical analysis sample involved 'shadow upon enforced communication accused.' 765, 1832. 14 These cases led us conclude Gilbert 388 263, 87 1951, 1178, While '(o)ne's are, course, means communication,' 'mere exemplar, contrast what written, itself, characteristic outside protection.' 266—267, 1953. And similarly Wade, 218, 1926, 1149, bank robbery utter lineup words allegedly spoken robber. 'required characteristic, guilt.' 222—223, 1930. 15 Wade definitively refute measure properties voices, said.6 II summoned directed We disagree. 17 guarantees all people shall 'secure houses, papers, effects, searches seizures Any violation setting must rest governmental privacy 'persons' rather interference 'property relationships private papers.' U.S., 767, 1833; see Doe (Schwartz), Cir., 457 895, 897. Terry Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 889, afforded terms statement Katz 389 347, 507, 19 576, protects people, places,' id., 351, 511, 'wherever individual harbor reasonable 'expectation privacy,' entitled free intrusion.' supra, 9, 1873. As made Schmerber, obtaining involves two levels—the 'person' necessary bring contact government agents, subsequent initial justified lawful arrest, light exigent circumstances. Terry, person, investigatory 'stop' policeman, search, 'patdown' outer clothing weapons, constituted Fourteenth constitutionality necessarily turns dual inquiry—whether either sense, even though inconvenient burdensome. Last Term again acknowledged recognized,7 '(c)itizens generally constitutionally immune subpoenas Branzburg Hayes, 408 665, 682, 1646, 2656, 33 626. 'Although unlimited subject supervision judge, longstanding principle public right every man's evidence,' except those constitutional, commonlaw, statutory privilege, Bryan, 339 323, 331, 70 724, 730, 94 884 (1950); Blackmer 284 421, 438, 52 255, 76 375 (1932); J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192 (McNaughton rev. 1961), particularly applicable proceedings.' 688, 2660. 21 recent reaffirmations historically grounded obligation personal sacrifice part contribution welfare public.' Blair 250 273, 281, 39 468, 471, 63 979. See Garland Torre, 259 545, 549. while duty 'onerous' times, 'necessary administration justice.' 471.8 exerted differs effected investigative civic obligation. For, Friendly wrote Circuit: 23 latter abrupt, force threat demeaning circumstances, and, results record involving social stigma. served manner legal process; stigma whatever; if time appearance inconvenient, can altered; remains times control court.' (Schwartz) F.2d, 898. 24 Thus recognized now us, 'grand kind affords once satisfied.' Fraser 452 616, 620; cf. Weinberg, 439 743, 748—749. 25 This thus quite primarily relied. For seizure—the Fouteenth Amendments, taking fingerprints. '(i)nvestigatory numbers innocent harassment ignominy incident involuntary detention,' 726, 1397, left open question whether, consistently narrowly circumscribed might developed them. 728, 1398.9 plainly inapposite restraint infringe 26 say talisman dissolves protections. cannot books records incriminate him. Boyd 116 633—635, 524, 533—535, 29 746.10 provides duces tecum too sweeping 'to regarded reasonable.' Hale Henkel, 201 43, 76, 370, 379, 50 652; Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. Walling, 327 186, 208, 217, 66 494, 505, 509, 90 614. last Term, context First claim, indicated Constitution tolerate transformation instrument oppression: 'Official press disrupt reporter's relationship news sources justification. Grand juries judicial motions quash. do expect will forget operate limits well Fifth.' 707—708, 2669—2670. also, 710, 2671 (Powell, J., concurring). 27 But faced infirmities recordings. There is, said, claim. tecum. extended beyond moorings tied generalized due process concept, still indication concern there. 28 critical significance exemplars.11 think basically irrelevant issues here. attempting identify voices tapes effort voice. whatever case, '(a) investigation fully carried out available clue run down examined proper way find crime Stone, 429 138, 140. Wood Georgia, 370 375, 392, 82 1364, 1374, 569. recalled 'Because task inquire existence conduct return well-founded indictments, broad.' 2659.12 desirable call numerous investigation. follow each resist called. Neither rendered subjected compulsion. conclusion Dionisio's answer first inquiry argues infringement accept argument. 30 said 'a knowingly exposes public, own home 511. person's voice, tone manner, opposed specific constantly exposed public. Like facial handwriting, repeatedly produced hear. No expectation know sound reasonably face mystery world. stated: 'Except rare recluse who chooses live life complete solitude, our daily lives write, underlying characteristics—the constant factor throughout communications—are basis constructing wall casual contacts strangers. Hence individual's execution exemplars; nothing being previously large.' 898—899. disclosure immeasurably further removed Schmerber. interests human dignity forbid intrusions mere chance desired obtained.' 769—770, 1835. Similarly, 'severe, brief, cherished security,' 'pat down' Terry—'surely annoying, frightening, perhaps humiliating experience.' 24—25, 1882. Rather, fingerprinting where, impermissible, 'involves none probing thoughts marks interrogation search.' 727, 1398; Thom Stock Exchange, D.C., 306 F.Supp. 1002, 1009. justification satisfy minimal requirement 'reasonableness' imposed Appeals.13 899—900. broad it. jurors act tips, rumors, offered prosecutor, knowledge. 701, 2666. 'entitled set conduct.' 282, 471. sufficient indictment emerge end received. 34 'It impossible conceive examination stopped laid formally preferred, very object ascertain indicted.' 65, 375. raised reason who, despite lack declined prior justify proceedings.14 36 civilian brought infamous 'unless presentment Jury.' guarantee presupposes 'acting independently prosecuting attorney judge,' Stirone 361 212, 80 270, mission innocent, guilty.15 holding saddle minitrials showings assuredly impede frustrate public's fair expeditious laws. Cf. Ryan, 402 530, 532 533, 91 1580, 1581—1582, 85; Costello 350 359, 363—364, 406, 408—409, 100 397; Cobbledick 309 327—328.16 60 540, 542—543, 84 783. always serve historic role protective bulwark standing solidly ordinary citizen overzealous approach performance mission, pursue investigations unhindered external influence so trench legitimate called 37 existed, required, judgment remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 38 ordered. Judgment orders issued U.S.C. 2518, statute authorizing interception wire determination belief committing, committed, commit offense enumerated section 2516 chapter (including transmission wagering information); concerning through interception; normal tried failed unlikely succeed dangerous; (d) facilities which, place oral used, connection commission offense, leased to, listed name of, commonly person.' unreported. months, up additional months. 3331. procedure Sixth counsel. merit option 278. 895 (affirming exemplars). appears recanted somewhat correct subsequently explaining holding, qualified it: 'Nevertheless, defendants, purpose FBI agents court-ordered wiretap, self-incriminatory impact clear. odds spirit Because illuminates (see 746 .), readily immunity granted, yet granted.' 619 n. 5. dealt records, sources, circumstance 'Fourth Amendments almost other.' 630, 532. contrast, jeopardized; hint Appeals' attempt 'spirit survive Gilbert, Kastigar 441, 443 444, 1653, 1655—1656, 212; 279—281, 470—471, 979; 2191 (J. McNaughton 1961). inquiry. 898; Winter, 348 204, 207—208. Weinfeld characterized 'but another application matter scope duration. circumstances presented sole ban seizure.' 1007 Allen Cupp, 426 756, 760. concerned motion invoices forfeiture trial, treated equivalent tecum, 652, above, 11, youths substantial justifiable '(The jury) inquest, inquisition, inquiries limited questions propriety forecasts doubts properly accusation crime. before, identity offender, precise nature one, normally labors, beginning. Hendricks 223 178, 184, 313, 56 394.' 77, 380, met, 11—12, overly papers. MARSHALL, dissent 31, 781, suggests testify. Such finds support Constitution. His asserted intrusiveness appear—the inconvenience official restraint. intrusive simply '(T)he institution adopted country, continued considerations similar chief value England, designed means, bringing offences just protecting unfounded accusation, comes government, prompted partisan passion enmity. according fundamental mentioned, higher crimes unless consisting sixteen twenty-three good men, selected district, declare, careful deliberation, solemnity oath, trial.' Ex parte Bain, 121 786, 849 (quoting charge Field). 390, 1373, possibilities delay caused illustrated re September 1971 Jury, 454 580, rev'd sub nom. Mara, 19, 774, 99, show adversary hearing request reasonable, included proof sources.

Category: 0