{
  "id": "RL32184",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32184",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 450325,
      "date": "2004-01-02",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:31:29.277544",
      "title": "Supreme Court Recognition of Fifth Amendment Protection for Acts of Production",
      "summary": "<p>On several occasions the Supreme Court has addressed the question of when Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to the act of responding to a government subpoena or other command. Beginning with Schmerber and Fisher , through Doe, and finishing with Hubbell , the Court has declared that acts of production may fall within the privilege when they are personal, compelled, incriminating, testimonial communications. The act of production doctrine is easily misunderstood, but some of the uncertainty can be dissipated by a close examination of the facts and views of the Court in the cases where the issue has arisen. The cases reveal that: An act of production is not privileged when it is done voluntarily. It is not privileged to the extent that it involves sample-taking from an individual rather than some act which requires the individual to exercise his cognitive faculties. It is not privileged to the extent that the act is performed as representatives of a corporation or other collective entity. It does not preclude disclosures required for participation in a regulatory scheme. The cases also explain that an act of production may be privileged as a testimonial communication when, with respect to the items sought, it implicitly concedes their existence, identifies them, evidences possession of or control over them, discloses their location, or vouches for their authenticity. The two cases where the privilege was successfully claimed involved general, sweeping demands, characterized by the courts as governmental fishing expeditions, that made the individual to whom they were addressed a strong, and perhaps even indispensable witness against himself. Both cases involved sweeping subpoenas which demanded that the individuals engage in the mental exercise of identifying, collecting, and organizing documents that incriminated them or that led to incriminating evidence This report is available in an abridged form without its footnotes as CRS Report RS21701 , A Sketch of Supreme Court Recognition of Fifth Amendment Protection for Acts of Production .</p>",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32184",
          "sha1": "2d023f9c48f073082eff5687018ac269766480f5",
          "filename": "files/20040102_RL32184_2d023f9c48f073082eff5687018ac269766480f5.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040102_RL32184_2d023f9c48f073082eff5687018ac269766480f5.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}