> Maybe I don't have a proper understanding of the 5th Amendment, but my > understanding is it is to protect you from providing self-incriminating > testimony, not self-incriminating evidence. Maybe it's the digital vs. > tangible argument again perhaps, but in a murder trial I doubt you would > be able to deny an order to hand over blood-soaked clothes under the > protection of the 5th. > > --Henry
To answer that look at the origins of the 5th amendment and it's actual wording. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Not to get political, but notice that it does say "person" not "citizen", thats why it's called a human right and not just an american right, but gitmo is a subject for another debate. The key phrase here is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" Compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This stems from the old tactic of torturing a confession out of someone. The point being you can't make someone divulge the contents of his heart and mind. The contents of his papers and effects however are subject to search and seizure given a specific warrant. In a murder trial handing over blood soaked evidence would be covered under evidentiary procedures, not constitutional procedures. Where it gets hairy (pun intended) is when you compel a suspect to hand over a DNA sample via the use of force. The jury is still out on that one. My opinion is that DNA should not be forcefully collected from convicts and should be removed from any and all databases should the convict be subsequently exonerated. On the other hand I have also been reading a lot on the reliability of DNA evidence or lack thereof, and the thought of it's use as the sole piece of evidence to convict someone and lock them away for life or most of their life, is rather unsettling. On the other hand the lack of laws allowing convicts to voluntarily submit to DNA testing in an effort to exonerate themselves is also unsettling and seems like it violates something that I can't quite put my finger on. Sincerely, Steve /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
