{
  "id": "RS21701",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS21701",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104561,
      "date": "2004-01-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:31:22.468544",
      "title": "A Sketch of Supreme Court Recognition of Fifth Amendment Protection for Acts of Production",
      "summary": "The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution declares in pertinent part that, \"No\nperson . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.\" The United\nStates Supreme Court has pointed that acts of production may fall within of the Fifth Amendment\nprivilege against self-incrimination under some circumstances. To do so they must satisfy the\nprivilege's general demands that require a (1) personal, (2) governmentally compelled, (3)\nincriminating, (4) testimonial, (5) communication. \n  The act of production doctrine is easily misunderstood for a number reasons. First, the\nprotected communication is most often implicit. The privilege covers an individual's actions rather\nthan his speech or writing, yet many incriminating actions such as providing a blood sample or a\nhandwriting sample are ordinarily not protected because they are not testimonial. Second, no bright\nline divides communications that are testimonial from those that are not. Third, the privilege\nsometimes protects the act of producing existing documents which by themselves are not protected\nbecause they were originally prepared voluntarily. Fourth, the privilege protects not only\nintrinsically incriminating communications but also those that form a link in the chain of\nincrimination. Some of the uncertainty can be dissipated by a close examination of the facts and\nviews of the Court in the cases where the issue has arisen.\n  The Supreme Court has recognized a claim of privilege in two act of production cases,\n  Doe I \nand  Hubbell . Both cases involved sweeping subpoenas which demanded that\nindividuals engage in\nthe mental exercise of identifying, collecting, and organizing documents that incriminated them or\nthat lead to incriminating evidence. This report is an abridged version -- without footnotes -- of  CRS Report RL32184 ,  Supreme Court Recognition of Fifth Amendment Protection for Acts of\nProduction .",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS21701",
          "sha1": "ac6545368c3cf811b498a0fc867aae1cd6b0a1d7",
          "filename": "files/20040106_RS21701_ac6545368c3cf811b498a0fc867aae1cd6b0a1d7.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS21701",
          "sha1": "0b9f070f07d0f7753f421761435f9159ae2b1550",
          "filename": "files/20040106_RS21701_0b9f070f07d0f7753f421761435f9159ae2b1550.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}