From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 05:11:44 +0800
To: Steve Reid <steve@edmweb.com>
Subject: Re: 5th protect password?
Message-ID: <m0uB2v1-00090gC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:03 PM 4/20/96 -0700, Steve Reid wrote:
>> >   A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that
>> >   is incriminating.  Fingerprints, blood samples, voice
>> >   exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical
>> >   evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will.
>
>> As you might expect, I see a problem (and a pattern!) with even these 
>> examples.  Notice that with the possible exception of "handwriting 
>> specimens", the examples above all represent pieces of evidence whose 
>> utility was only made technologically possible by developments done more 
>> than a century after the writing of the Constitution.  Fingerprints have 
>
>I think you missed the main pattern... When a suspect is required to
>provide fingerprints, voice, blood and/or handwriting samples, those
>things are used exclusively for _identification_.

Is this "a distinction without a difference"???  

>
>The only exceptions I can think of are when blood, breath and urine
>samples are taken from a suspect to detect certain chemicials in the body. 
>But, AFAIK, those exceptions are entirely the product of the recent war on
>drugs. 

This is odd.  By mentioning those exceptions you just destroyed your 
argument.  If you were trying to claim that "identification"-intended 
evidence was not protected by the 5th amendment, mentioning samples taken to 
detect drugs are obviously not of this type.  The implication is that they 
represent an entirely different class of "non-violations" of the 5th 
amendment.  How many other non-violations are you going to be able to pull 
out of that hat, along with that rabbit?

This, as you might expect, is getting hilarious.  Somehow, I think 
everything that might be construed as a violation of the 5th is going to be 
called "a special case" or "an exception" by those who see no problem, or at 
least those who 
are not willing to admit to a problem. 

What's so hard about admitting that the powers-that-be in this country today 
chafe at the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and try to do 
everything in their power to minimize or eliminate them?  It's certainly not 
an unexpected possibility, and in fact most people probably recognize that 
it is unavoidable.  Once you are dragged, kicking and screaming, to an 
admission that this kind of thing actually happens, your next task is to 
identify current policy practices which are the product of this kind of 
misinterpretation.


See, my argument is that there is a pattern of violation of the 5th 
amendment, and glory be, you provide yet more ammunition for my claims.  I 
think you need to go back, try to figure out the originally intended meaning 
of the 5th, and differentiate it from the subsequent 210+ years of wishful 
thinking on the part of the government.  

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com