Opinion ID: 2173102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicability of Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination

Text: The privilege against compelled self-incrimination is the mainstay of our accusatorial system of criminal justice and, as such, is applicable to states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed. 2d 653 (1964). Moreover, this privilege  although not written into the New Jersey Constitution  is firmly established as a part of our common law and has been incorporated into our Rules of Evidence. See Evid R. 23, 24 and 25; In re Ippolito, 75 N.J. 435, 440 (1978); State v. Vinegra, 73 N.J. 484, 488-489 (1977). Consequently, whenever a court is confronted with the question of a compelled disclosure that has an incriminating potential [,] the judicial scrutiny [must be] a close one. California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 427, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 1537, 29 L.Ed. 2d 9 (1971). The situations in which the privilege can be invoked are broad in scope. An individual is not merely protected from being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution. He is also privileged not to answer official questions put to him in any other context, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings. Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1973). Moreover, it matters not whether the self-incriminatory admissions are sought to be obtained through oral testimony or written responses. See, e.g., Marchetti v. United States, supra ; Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, supra, 382 U.S. at 78, 86 S.Ct. 194. In either situation, the privilege can be invoked. Thus, for example, the privilege is applicable to testimony given during grand jury proceedings, see, e.g., In re Tuso, 73 N.J. 575 (1977); information requested during hearings before state investigative committees, see, e.g., In re Ippolito, 75 N.J. 435 (1978); and admissions sought during official inquiries into the qualifications of licensed professionals, see e.g., Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 78, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1973). Most importantly for present purposes, the privilege may be invoked with respect to information sought to be elicited through forms and questionnaires prepared by government agencies. See, e.g., Marchetti v. United States, supra (IRS); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed. 2d 906 (1968) (IRS); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed. 2d 923 (1968) (Treasury Department); Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, supra (SACB). There is thus no doubt that the privilege is applicable in the present context.