United States v. Dionisio
410 U.S. 1 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A grand jury subpoena compelling a witness to furnish a voice exemplar does not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, nor does it violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Facts:
- A special grand jury was convened in Illinois to investigate possible federal gambling offenses.
- During its investigation, the grand jury obtained voice recordings from court-ordered wiretaps.
- The grand jury subpoenaed approximately 20 individuals, including Dionisio, to obtain voice exemplars for comparison with the intercepted recordings.
- Each witness was informed they were a potential defendant in a criminal prosecution.
- Dionisio was asked to read a transcript of an intercepted conversation into a recording device to create the exemplar.
- Dionisio refused to provide the voice exemplar, claiming it would violate his constitutional rights.
Procedural Posture:
- The Government filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to compel Dionisio to furnish the voice exemplar.
- The District Court granted the government's petition, rejecting Dionisio's Fourth and Fifth Amendment arguments.
- When Dionisio refused to comply with the court's order, the District Court adjudged him in civil contempt and ordered him into custody.
- Dionisio, as appellant, appealed the contempt order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, with the Government as appellee, reversed the District Court's order, holding that compelling the exemplar violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The United States, as petitioner, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a grand jury subpoena compelling a witness to provide a voice exemplar for identification purposes, without a preliminary showing of reasonableness, violate the witness's rights under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No, a grand jury subpoena compelling a voice exemplar does not violate the Fourth Amendment. First, a subpoena to appear before a grand jury is not a 'seizure' in the Fourth Amendment sense, as it does not involve the abrupt, forceful intrusion of an arrest or investigatory stop and is rooted in the historical public obligation to provide evidence. Second, the subsequent directive to produce a voice exemplar is not an unreasonable search or seizure because an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the physical characteristics of their voice. A person's voice, like their handwriting or facial features, is constantly exposed to the public, and its physical properties are not considered private information protected by the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, no preliminary showing of reasonableness is required for the grand jury to compel its production. The court also affirmed that compelling a voice exemplar does not violate the Fifth Amendment, as it is identifying physical evidence, not testimonial or communicative in nature.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the broad investigative powers of the grand jury. It establishes a clear distinction between the protected content of a communication and the unprotected physical characteristics used for identification, such as a voice or handwriting. By holding that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in these physical attributes, the Court carved out a major area from Fourth Amendment protection, allowing grand juries to compel such evidence without any showing of reasonableness or probable cause. This ruling prevents witnesses from challenging grand jury subpoenas for physical evidence with 'mini-trials' on reasonableness, thereby streamlining the investigative process.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Dionisio