The government could photograph "immediately visible" tattoos on the defendants' heads, faces, necks, arms and hands for the purpose of presenting these photos at trial as evidence of gang affiliation but could not photograph tattoos beyond these "openly visible" areas because of the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments.
Are you going to assert your Fifth Amendment right, sir?
I'm going to stand on the Fifth Amendment. That's my business.
The Fifth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In short, the privilege applies if a person would be forced to provide a testimonial communication that would incriminate the person in a criminal proceeding.
391 (1976), the Supreme Court held that documents are generally not protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Court noted that a production of documents generally "does not compel oral testimony; nor would it ordinarily compel the taxpayer to restate, repeat, or affirm the truth of the contents of the documents sought." Under certain circumstances, however, documents can provide the required testimonial communication through the act-of-production doctrine.
be invoking the Fifth Amendment. This sort of factual situation begs the
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[n]o
(13) If privy material is requested through the Banking Security Act, the required records doctrine, an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, grants the federal government access to potentially self-incriminatory documents if they are regulatory by nature and provide benefit to "public aspects." (14)
The required records exception to the Fifth Amendment was established so that governmental entities could regulate otherwise private record-keeping information, to fulfill a governmental entity's legitimate purpose.
because he did not expressly invoke his
Fifth Amendment right to remain
her
Fifth Amendment right because the Department of Justice was