2020•The William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository (William & Mary)Open access

The Protection of Free Choice and the Right to Passivity: Applying the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination to Physical Examinations and Documents' Submission

Rinat Kitai‐Sangero

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

This Article addresses the question of whether the privilege against selfincrimination should cover physical examinations as well as the obligation to submit documents. This question requires a serious examination of the justifications underlying the privilege against self-incrimination and is of particular relevance in the current age of technological progress that expands the powers assigned to law enforcement agencies to access knowledge and thoughts stored in individuals’ minds. After addressing the comparative law regarding the applicability of the privilege against selfincrimination to physical examinations and to the obligation to submit documents and discussing key justifications for the privilege against self-incrimination, dividing them into epistemic and non-epistemic, and examining in that light whether there is a valid distinction between compelled speech and compelled physical examinations and documents’ submission, the Article concludes that extending the privilege against self-incrimination to physical examinations and to the obligation to submit documents is necessary to protect accused persons’ free will to choose their defense strategy given the burden imposed on the state to prove guilt as a condition for securing convictions.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This Article addresses the question of whether the privilege against selfincrimination should cover physical examinations as well as the obligation to submit documents. This question requires a serious examination of the justifications underlying the privilege against self-incrimination and is of particular relevance in the current age of technological progress that expands the powers assigned to law enforcement agencies to access knowledge and thoughts stored in individuals’ minds. After addressing the comparative law regarding the applicability of the privilege against selfincrimination to physical examinations and to the obligation to submit documents and discussing key justifications for the privilege against self-incrimination, dividing them into epistemic and non-epistemic, and examining in that light whether there is a valid distinction between compelled speech and compelled physical examinations and documents’ submission, the Article concludes that extending the privilege against self-incrimination to physical examinations and to the obligation to submit documents is necessary to protect accused persons’ free will to choose their defense strategy given the burden imposed on the state to prove guilt as a condition for securing convictions.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This Article addresses the question of whether the privilege against selfincrimination should cover physical examinations as well as the obligation to submit documents. This question requires a serious examination of the justifications underlying the privilege against self-incrimination and is of particular relevance in the current age of technological progress that expands the powers assigned to law enforcement agencies to access knowledge and thoughts stored in individuals’ minds. After addressing the comparative law regarding the applicability of the privilege against selfincrimination to physical examinations and to the obligation to submit documents and discussing key justifications for the privilege against self-incrimination, dividing them into epistemic and non-epistemic, and examining in that light whether there is a valid distinction between compelled speech and compelled physical examinations and documents’ submission, the Article concludes that extending the privilege against self-incrimination to physical examinations and to the obligation to submit documents is necessary to protect accused persons’ free will to choose their defense strategy given the burden imposed on the state to prove guilt as a condition for securing convictions.

Key concepts: Self-incrimination, Privilege (computing), Obligation, Law, Enforcement, Relevance (law), Political science, Internet privacy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Protection of Free Choice and the Right to Passivity: Applying the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination to Physical Examinations and Documents' Submission — Research Paper | ScholarLens