From: Steve Reid <steve@edmweb.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:00:30 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: 5th protect password?
In-Reply-To: <m0uAiWV-00091CC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960420214313.7498B-100000@kirk.edmweb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> >   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_.

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. 

Just my two bits. IANAL.

=====================================================================
| Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/)    |
| Email: steve@edmweb.com   Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ |
| PGP Fingerprint: 11 C8 9D 1C D6 72 87 E6  8C 09 EC 52 44 3F 88 30 |
|              -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, IANAL. --                 |
===================================================================:)