NCJ Number
13521
Journal
UMKC Law Review Volume: 42 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1973) Pages: 244-250
Date Published
1973
Length
7 pages
Annotation
DISCUSSION OF THE 1973 SUPREME COURT DECISION REAFFIRMING THE POWERS OF A GRAND JURY TO COMPEL APPEARANCE AS WELL AS OBTAIN A VOICE EXEMPLAR WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE WITNESS'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Abstract
IN UNITED STATES V. DIONISIO, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ADDRESSED TWO ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORY PROCESS. THE COURT SPOKE FIRST TO THE ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATORY POWER OF THE GRAND JURY, AFFIRMING PREVIOUS HOLDINGS AS TO THE BROAD SCOPE OF THE GRAND JURY'S POWER. IT CONCLUDED THAT THE SUMMONING OF A WITNESS TO APPEAR BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF THE PERSON. INDEED, IT IS NOT A 'SEIZURE' IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SENSE AT ALL, BUT RATHER A SUMMONS WHICH IT IS THE WITNESS'S PUBLIC DUTY TO ANSWER. SECONDLY, THE COURT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF THE TAKING OF VOICE EXEMPLARS AS A SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, HOLDING THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THAT INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURE. IN UNITED STATES V. MARA, DECIDED THE SAME DAY AS DIONISIO, THE COURT EXTENDED ITS ANALYSIS TO THE TAKING OF HANDWRITING EXEMPLARS. VIEWED INDEPENDENTLY, THE SUPREME COURT'S CONCLUSIONS IN DIONISIO ARE NOT RADICAL DEPARTURES FROM PRECEDENT AND PRACTICE. ALTHOUGH A GRAND JURY'S POWER TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY MEANS OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HAS LONG BEEN SUBJECT TO THE REASONABLENESS REQUIREMENT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY DECLINED TO PLACE SUCH A REQUIREMENT ON THE SUMMONING OF WITNESSES. NOR CAN THE HOLDING THAT VOICE CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES WITHIN THE AREA OF PRIVACY PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY UNEXPECTED, SINCE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAD EARLIER REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION. IT IS WHEN THE TWO ELEMENTS OF DIONISIO ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, HOWEVER, THAT THE FULL MEANING OF THE DECISION BECOMES OBVIOUS. AS THE COURT MADE CLEAR IN DAVIS V. MISSISSIPPI, POLICE CANNOT DETAIN A SUSPECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING ANY IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE UNLESS THEY COMPLY WITH FOURTH AMENDMENT STANDARDS REGARDING THE SEIZURE OF THE PERSON. AS THE COURT HAS MADE EQUALLY CLEAR IN DIONISIO, A GRAND JURY CAN DETAIN A SUSPECT FOR THE SAME PURPOSE WITHOUT CONFORMING TO SUCH STANDARDS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)