Opinion ID: 1407256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Taking Of Handwriting Exemplars

Text: Defendant next challenges the taking of her handwriting exemplars under compulsion. She argues that this was tantamount to an unreasonable search and seizure and was a violation of her privilege against self-incrimination under Article I, Sections 5 and 8, respectively, of the state constitution. [9] She does not, however, allege the writings were of a communicative or testimonial character. The United States Supreme Court has held that compulsion to produce handwriting exemplars does not transgress the Fourth Amendment because handwriting is a physical characteristic which is constantly exposed to the public. United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 21, 93 S.Ct. 774, 775, 35 L.Ed.2d 99 (1973). The Court has also determined that such coercion does not contravene the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment when the writing is not communicative in nature. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). Accord, United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707, 100 S.Ct. 874, 63 L.Ed.2d 141 (1980). Following Mara and Gilbert, we find no constitutional violation. Defendant does not claim the writings here were of a testimonial or communicative character and the sole purpose for securing the exemplars was to obtain a standard of comparison to determine whether defendant was the author of certain documents.