Legal Document

410 U.S. 19 93 Supreme Court Reporter 774 35 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 99 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Richard Judge MARA aka Richard Marasovich. Number 71—850. Argued Nov. 6, 1972. Decided Jan. 22, 1973. Syllabus Respondent, subpoenaed to furnish handwriting exemplars enable a grand jury determine whether he was the author of certain writings, held in contempt after refusing compliance, District having rejected respondent's contention that such compelled production would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. The Appeals reversed, holding Fourth Amendment applied Government had make preliminary showing reasonableness. Held: specific narrowly drawn directive specimen, which, like speech disclosure upheld versus Dionisio, 1, 764, 67 involved physical characteristics, violated no legitimate interest. Pp. 775—776. 454 Federal Reporter, 2nd 580, reversed remanded. Philip Atlantic Lacovara, New York City, for petitioner. Angelo Ruggiero, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Phylis Skloot Bamberger, Community Defender Organization Legal Aid Society N.Y., as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 respondent, Mara, appear before September 1971 Grand Jury Northern Illinois investigating thefts interstate shipments. On two separate occasions directed produce printing jury's designated agent. Each time advised potential defendant matter under investigation. both refused exemplars. 2 then petitioned compel Mara jury. petition indicated were 'essential necessary' investigation be used solely standard comparison writings. accompanied affidavit FBI agent, submitted camera, which set forth basis seeking seizure, ordered respondent provide them. When witness continued refuse do so, adjudged civil committed custody until obeyed court order or expiration term. 3 Seventh Circuit reversed. 580. Relying on its earlier decision In re 442 276, rev'd, 67, found '(I)t is plain compelling (Mara) his forbidden unless has complied with reasonableness requirement. . .' F.2d, at 582. 4 turned issues necessarily generated Dionisio—the procedure must follow substantive it establish directive. It camera Court, have present open might contest sufficiency. ruled 'reasonableness' showing: 'that properly authorized, purpose Congress can order, information sought relevant inquiry, process not being abused. (T)he Government's also show why satisfactory cannot obtained from other sources without compulsion.' 584—585. 5 We granted certiorari, 406 956, 92 2056, 32 343, consider this case 67. 6 today subpoena 'seizure' within meaning and, further, 'physical characteristics' are 'constantly exposed public.' Supra, 9—10, S.Ct., 769. Handwriting, speech, repeatedly shown public, there more expectation privacy characteristics person's script than tone voice. See Doe (Schwartz), Cir., 457 895, 898—899; Bradford States, 413 467, 471—472; cf. Gilbert California, 388 263, 266—267, 87 1951, 1953—1954, 18 1178. Consequently obligation here, any 'reasonableness.' 7 Indeed, lacks even aspects expansive significant Dionisio. case, 20 witnesses summoned give exemplars; here only one. requiring specimen handwriting* correct, therefore, ordering comply request. 8 Accordingly, judgment remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 9 so ordered. 10 Judgment 11 BRENNAN, concurring part dissenting 71—229, 12 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions agree, reasons stated Dionisio's Fifth claims merit. dissent, however, Court's rejection Dionisio agree seizure violation effected limited appearance suspect testify. But insofar requires suspect's obtain voice him, conclude, substantially agreement Part II my Brother MARSHALL'S simply presumed. therefore affirm judgments reversing convictions remand directions afford opportunity prove fashioned Appeals. 13 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 14 William Campbell, who been Chicago over years, recently made following indictment against jury:1 15 'This great institution past long ceased guardian people created Runnymede. Today but convenient tool prosecutor—too often publicity. Any experienced prosecutor will admit indict anybody almost anything jury.' 16 is, indeed, common knowledge jury, conceived bulwark between citizen Government, now Executive. concession longer realistic sense 'a protective standing solidly ordinary overzealous prosecutor' reason enough these judgments. 17 uncommon room discover prosecutor. cases us prime examples perversion. Respondent approximately others Special February illegal gambling operations. During investigation, received exhibits recordings orders, warrants issued Code KF62 § 2518 authorizing wiretaps. instructed go Attorney's office, their own counsel if they desired, company agent appointed foreman, read transcript wire interception. readings recorded. compared voices taken wiretap witnesses' record. ground violate rights Amendments. filed petitions constitutional arguments demanded compliance. again placed prison term expired. concluding compliance rights. protected Constitution seizures failed actions. Jury, Illinois, convened investigate shipments goods occurred State. requested submit sample bandwriting refused. went asserting proceeding, request outlined procedures kind. First, hearing constitutionality adversary manner. Substantially, authorized power regulate, adequate, excessive, purposes inquiry. Today, majority overrules reasoned Circuit. 21 Under Amendment, law enforcement officers may evidence, absent Davis Mississippi, 394 721, 89 1394, 22 676; Boyd 116 616, 524, 29 L.Ed. 746. test protects thing. said Katz 'the people, places. What person knowingly exposes home subject protection. * what seeks preserve private, area accessible constitutionally protected.' 389 347, 351—352, 88 507, 511, 576. asserts invade individual when because public. argues that, recluse, meant private thus qualify aid Amendment. This fingerprints requirements Search Seizure Clause supra. hand, facial scars, birthmarks, features 'in view' protected. 895. 23 Davis, sheriff Mississippi rounded up 24 blacks rape victim described her assailant young Negro. fingerprinted released. presented identified. He jailed probable cause, later did confirm matched those window victim's home. could admitted, seized reasonable grounds. 'Investigatory unlimited numbers innocent persons harassment ignominy incident involuntary detention. Nothing clear prevent wholesale intrustions upon personal security our citizenry, intrusions termed 'arrests' 'investigatory detentions." supra, U.S., 726—727, 1397—1398. dragnet effect where identification, just kind invasion prevent. Facial public regardless cooperation compulsion owner features. get exemplars, involved. So, although everyday life vehicle normal social intercourse, enters zone privacy, view, made. contends since different exists broad investigatory powers. Blair 250 273, 39 468, 63 979. Cf. Bryan, 339 323, 70 724, 94 884. concedes applies prevents executing subpoenas duces tecum overly broad. Hale Henkel, 201 43, 76, 26 370, 379—380, 50 652. asserts, limit application. limited, reiterated Terry Ohio, 392 1868, 889, comes into fullblown search. essential extend protection 'wherever harbor 'expectation privacy." Id., 9, 1873. 25 Just nature rebels limits impose coverage, does itself. secured Runnymede King John cornerstone liberty people. serve buffer state offender. For how obnoxious be, prosecute felony indictment. body peers axes grind agency serve. accusatorial recognized Constitution. 'The very requirement man indicted jeopardy offenses charged group fellow citizens acting independently either prosecuting attorney judge.'2 Stirone 361 212, 218, 80 270, 252. said, 'It evident use powers cause exist arrest some other, less unusual, method exemplars.' 280. Hannah Larche, 363 420, 497—499, 1502, 1547—1549, 1307 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Are we stand still watch prosecution evade restrictions turning agent? allow usurp Magna Carta codified Constitution? That result continue apply As 59, 373, most valuable function jury' 'to accused, charge founded credible testimony dictated malice ill will.' 27 applicable sweeping, all-inclusive 'equally indefensible warrant couched similar terms.' 77, 380. 28 Of course, require Henkel makes carry all impedimenta trial petit To date, testimonial evidence. say, suggests, nontestimonial evidence free restraint imposed manipulate juries vast unconstrollable power. Executive, through prosecutor, chose, Eighth Circuit, 'We conclude taking Amendment.' Harris, 453 1317, 1319. plain, searches prior approval judge magistrate 'subject few specifically established well-delineated exceptions.' 357, 514. 30 required need 'reasonable,' 'is synonymous cause.' 584. come juries, strict same ingredients pointing toward guilt terms setting question exemplar way connected suspected criminal activity Certainly permit robbed vitality. 31 investigator stating based passed counsel. Appeals, relying Alderman 165, 183, 961, 972, 176, should proceeding. 582—583. If 'reasonable cause' play curbing executive appetite Alderman: 'Adversary magically eliminate error, reduce incidence guarding possibility judge, lack unfamiliarity contained suggested materials, unable scrutiny exclusionary rule demands.' 184, 972. allowing prepared prosecutor's office. 278. acted traditionally fair put down travesty justice cloak own. 33 view disposition cases, reach question. lest doubt stand, adhere position Wade, 243, 1926, 1940, 1149 (separate statement), Schmerber 384 757, 773, 86 1826, 1837, 908 (Black, dissenting, joined Douglas, J.), 778, 1839 dissenting), restricted compulsion. 34 MARSHALL, considers 221 223, 1929—1930, (1967), 265—267, 1952—1954, 1178 dispositive privilege compulsory self-incrimination. argued below him privilege. assume Wade claim well.1 reads exclusive measuring properties' witness' running afoul 7, 768. Such identification purview says, for, least 1832, (1966), while bar 'communications' 'testimony,' accused source 'real evidence' it.' 36 Member decided. Had been, difficult join decisions dealt Since, discuss II, affirmance rely Nevertheless, feel constrained express serious reservations concerning portions Gilbert, central today. 37 root difficulty limitation odds always understood would, include privilege, grave drawing line there. accept notion cooperate affirmatively securing incriminating suspect. never carried far officials enlist individual's overt assistance will—in himself. And remain discern substantial footing rest 38 draw much support language provides '(n)o shall himself ..' Nowhere explicitly reference 'witness' sort crabbed construction provision eschewed. Thus, years ago invoke applied, terms, 'criminal case.' Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 562, 195, 198, 1110 (1892). emphasized mischief guard.' Ibid. Even earlier, invoked context forfeiture warned that: '(C)onstitutional provisions property liberally construed. A close literal deprives them helf efficacy, leads gradual depreciation right, consisted sound substance.' 635, 535, 746 (1886). 40 Moreover, itself, papers, act giving oral oneself. Rather, suggests believe afforded namely, 'compell(ed) against' oneself, 637, 536. 776—777, 1838—1839 41 part, derives forms inherently unreliable. See, e.g., Gault, 387 47, 1428, 1454, 527 (1967). privilege—as guarantee invocation individual—is obviously concerned probative force Its roots 'tap basic stream religious political principle (and reflect) attornment 'constitutional foundation respect government—state federal—must accord dignity integrity citizens. maintain 'fair state-individual balance,' government shoulder entire load' ., inviolability human personality, accusatory system demands punish independent labors, rather cruel, simple expedient mouth.' Miranda Arizona, 436, 460, 1602, 1620, 694 (1966). Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 540—541, 81 735, 739—740, 760 (1961). prohibiting active assistance, personality' assured. fails take account purpose. 42 seems Holmes' Holt 218 245, 2, 54 1021 (1910). Holt, challenged admission blouse belonged defendant. testified fitted him. duress. course disposing defendant's argument, Holmes prohibition moral extort communications exclusion material.' 252—253, 6. remark considered dictum, arose illegally admitted federal court, see Weeks 232 383, 341, 58 652 (1914), Holt's ultimately disposed 'when (a man) exhibited, voluntarily goes too far, material, competent. Adams York, 192 585, 372, 48 575.' 253, 43 With Schmerber, elevated dictum full stature. conclusion blood sample, objection individual, alcoholic content barred resulting 'was neither (the individual's) nor relating communicative 765, 1833. appeared extended "testimony" "communications," "real evidence," id., 1832; 'established' sufficient, dispose 'loose dicta' suggest extensive 44 After relatively easy steps focusing exclusively compelled. 'compelling speak distance witnesses, utter words purportedly uttered robber,' 'no wear blouse.' 222, 1930, 1149. Similarly, 1953 1954, 1178, '(a) mere exemplar, contrast written, identifying characteristic outside privilege's) protection.' 45 Yet, look beyond limitation, clearly direct extensions Holt. first time, State affirmative cooperation—that accuse volitional differs degree out crime,' 261, 1950 (Fortas, part). samples cooperation. certainly cases. instances required, most, passively fitting shirt. Whatever reasoning decisions, understand involve interference personality intended sure, situations resist physically subdued, sense, employed. Or, alternatively, elect yield threat accusers, eliminating subverted. intrusion severe affront occurs secures enlisting will. results inconsistent proper privilege.2 46 costs volition subordinating power, viewed legal anomalies. Fortas, Douglas Chief Justice, day decided: 47 'Our history tradition teach command mute. means that; that. According jailed—indefinitely—until willing audience, whatever commission crime. Presumably include, 'Your money your life'—or perhaps, assault case. intolerable system.' 260, 1949. 291—292, 1965—1966 49 fear illustrations extent gone astray defining lost touch Constitution's concern 'inviolability personality.' secure possibly acquired respondents' nevertheless find extremely reversal face me concludes respondents surrendered exposing 351, 576 But, accepting conclusion, respondents, accomplished jury—and thereby interfering liberty—are majority, though, '(i)t though summons inconvenient burdensome.' due respect, nothing 'clear' about sweeping assertion. 51 There police constraints Fourteenth 727, 1397, 676 (1969), observed Term before, 19, 1879, 889 (1968), notions conduct stop short something called 'technical arrest' 'full-blown search." result, obtaining themselves Amendment.3 distinguish authorities engaged lawless large number Negro youths. Certainly, peculiarly offensive exercise heightened sensitivity dangers inherent Mississippi's argument seizures. presence determinant there; rather, petitioner's brought Amendments play, reliance Terry, dragnet. 52 Like official interfere liberty. dispositive, fact police. agree. 53 380, (1906), books papers (before jury) 4th Amendment,' particular facts concluded 'far regarded reasonable.' Considered alone, seem strong implication not, all, 'papers,' extends 'persons,' 'houses,' 'effects.' strange hierarchy values arbitrary governmental offers interrelated justifications excepting These 'historically grounded every jury,' 769, relative unintrustiveness 55 justified. treats obligation' discerns extending 'evidence,' character. am aware, heretofore documentary. relied despite dicta, broader sweep. 56 281, 471, 979 (1919), attendance testify duties bound perform (Emphasis added.) last Term, reaffirmed '(t)he agencies firmly Anglo-American jurisprudence'—nothing more. Kastigar 441, 443, 1653, 1655, 212 (1972) (emphasis added). And, Hughes 'one owes government' 'attending courts whenever summoned. Blackmer 284 421, 438, 252, 255, 76 375 (1932). short, history, reflected purposes. Branzburg Hayes, 408 665, 2646, 626 (1972); Ullmann 350 422, 439 n. 15, 497, 100 511 (1956); Piemonte 367 556, 559 1720, 1722, 1028 (1961); Wilson 361, 538, 541, 771 (1911); 65, 375. 331, 730, 884 (1950); Brown Walker, 161 591, 600, 644, 648, 819 (1896); Garland Torre, 259 545, 549 (CA2), cert. denied, 358 910, 79 237, 231 (1958). 57 cases—as itself discussion privilege—it glosses important distinction artificially bifurcating analysis place cases—that effectively treating done individuals once irrelevant determining safeguards govern initially appear. Nonetheless, remains historic exception resorts Hence, extension warranted, conditions. approaching questions, keep mind '(t)his consistently asserted '. essence .." Harris 331 145, 150, 1098, 1101, 91 1399 (1947). rule, stands intrusion—whatever form, purpose, see, Camara Municipal 523, 1727, 930 (1967)—upon 1873; Jones 362 257, 725, 731, 697 (1960). Given role scheme liberty, casually action excepted requirements. Coolidge Hampshire, 403 455, 2022, 2032, 564 (1971); 514; 528 529, 1730—1731. coverage fully defined accordingly. otherwise create danger lead 'impairment Amendment) adopted,' Go-Bart Importing 282 344, 153, 158, 75 374 (1931); Grau 287 124, 128, 38, 40, 77 59 justified unintrusiveness adopting Friendly's 898 (CA2 1972), arrests 'stops' inimical force; demeaning circumstances; stigma By contrast, told, served unoffensive manner; stigma; arranged. believe, unlike 'stop,' entails little inconvenience visit old friend. Common practical experience indicate otherwise. 60 service momentary embarrassment 'stop.'4 difference inconsequential contrary assertion—may well Public investigating, instance, organized mean loss friends, irreparable injury business, tremendous pressures one's family life. nice distinctions one tantamount station house. former frequently damaging latter, air greater gravity brief 'downtown' 'talk.' Bill Rights protect potentially disruptive conducted reasonably sufficient cause. 61 Nor problems alleviated seek 'convenient time.' 1398 detention 'need unexpectedly inapplicable; affect, type justify No considerate arranging appearance, officially restrained period time. differ meaningfully caused cannot, more, denying 62 person, mind, possible, least, explain, justify, failure true given powers, particularly it, 688, 701—702, 2569, 2666—2668; 282, 679, heavy assumptions. celebrated latter unfounded prosecution. Wood Georgia, 370 375, 390, 82 1364, 1373, 569 (1962); Hoffman 341 479, 485, 71 814, 817, 95 1118 (1951); Ex parte Bain, 121 11, 781, 786, 849 (1887). shed insulating qualities acts investigative capacity. Properly functioning, servant courts, 61, such, task bias self-interest. Unlike policeman, election win appointment keep. anticipated neutrality capacity, perhaps unwarranted lives ensure exercised fashion. circumstances, justifiable for—in police—it likely abuse powers.5 Costello 359, 362, 406, 408, 397 252 64 validity historical assumption underlies process,6 deprived independence neutrality—if surrenders prosecutor—the excessive exactly So carries activities mechanism inquiries, usurpation unreasonably great. Individuals available directly suspect,7 offer advantage techniques. 65 move realm today, increases subpoena. expectations essentially requested. summon suspects complying attractive accomplish indirectly process. 66 encourage prosecutorial exploitation process, expense traditional completely appreciate real hastens reduction another device officials. recognition dangers, narrow limitations necessary guard impair significantly body. 71—850, correctly 'examination preceded formal individual,' ascertain 471; Hendricks 223 178, 313, 316, (1912). Consistent 379. previously explained albeit somewhat context, (1) Congress'; (2) order'; (3) 'relevant'; (4) 'adequate, inquiry.' Oklahoma Press Publishing Walling, 327 186, 209, 494, 506, 90 614 (1946). interpretation adopted elaborating 'excessive,' added bear burden conducting general fishing expedition sponsorship.' 585. 68 burdensome gathered abuse—a making, improperly. call testimony, activity. discourage process.8 compels—protect interference, recognizes oppression.9 69 sample. meet reviewed absence ex exception, rule. unfamiliary demands.'10 176 (1969). Dennis 855, 873—875, 1840, 1850—1852, 973 Consequently, tested context.11 72 Appeals' requisite each invite seen writings possession, actually 'testimonial' opposed writing. stated: 'Such writings.' if, example, written answers questions signature statement—then, assert F.R.D. 229, 253 (1972). Black Groban, 352 330, 346—347, 510, 520, 376: English American composed members selected citizenry locality alleged crime committed. They bring experience, viewpoint sections community. personally administration law. lawenforcement officer ferreting seriously deceive Similarly jurors safeguard officers' misrepresentation, unintentional otherwise, statements normally unbiased them.' Although excerpt dissent disagreement accuracy description function. tendency shortcuts instruments susceptible manipulation 505, 1551—1552, dissenting); Jenkins McKeithen, 395 411, 1843, 404. Before merely proves entitled say apart Rochin 342 205, 96 183 (1952). Breithaupt Abram, 432, 448 (1957). left might, insufficient arrest. 727—728, overstep maliciously, totally control it. infra. acknowledges bulwark.' 17, 773. possible first-hand others. useful dual testifying Obviously, interfered appearing testifying, situation applied. application inappropriate While contributes goal Otherwise, subpoenaing guise deterrent applying lost. differences appear, applicability court's control. 11—12, 770. Besides First Due Process self-incrimination erect barriers transformation instrument oppression.' 652; 899. observed: '(D)ifficulties locating possessor apprehension, destructibility promptness violence repetition necessitate issuance proceeding.' 583. considerations secrecy dictates parte, However, interests adequately drastic measure. 'would saddle minitrials' assuredly impede frustrate public's interest expeditious laws.' sacrificed simplicity laws. hardly suggests. matters resists request, judicial directing proceeding already necessary. 'reasonable'

Classification Label: 0