Opinion ID: 363787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Passport

Text: 53 Friedman argues that he was compelled to surrender his passport in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and therefore that the passport should have been suppressed. 54 In Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976), the Court defined the limits of the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination: 55 (T)he Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence but applies only when the accused is compelled to make a Testimonial communication that is incriminating. 56 Id. at 408, 96 S.Ct. at 1579. 57 The incriminating information contained within Friedman's passport itself was not protected by the Fifth Amendment. The entries in the passport showing Friedman's presence in Chile are not testimonial declarations made by Friedman. See id. at 409-10, 96 S.Ct. 1569. 58 By producing the passport, Friedman may have made the tacit testimonial admissions that the passport existed, that it was in his possession, and that Friedman believed that the document that he surrendered was the passport requested. See United States v. Osborn, 561 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir. 1977). However, even assuming that those admissions were compelled by the condition to bail, those admissions are of minimal significance in this case and do not rise to the level of testimony within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. See id.; Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411-13, 96 S.Ct. 1569. 59 The passport was properly admitted into evidence.