• Protects an individual from being forced to decrypt hard drive contents. United States v. Doe (In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011), 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2012).
2. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. (Wash. Const. art. I, § 9).
- State constitution is co-extensive with the federal constitution. See State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 59-62, 882 P.2d 747 (1994) (refusing to extend greater protection through Const. Art. 1, § 9 than that provided by the federal constitution to the use of un-Mirandized statements); State v. Earls, 116 Wn.2d 364, 374-75, 805 P.2d 211 (1991). (“[R]esort to the Gunwall analysis is unnecessary because this court has already held that the protection of article 1, section 9 is coextensive with, not broader than, the protection of the Fifth Amendment.”); Dutil v. State, 93 Wn.2d 84, 606 P.2d 269 (1980) (state constitution provides no greater protection for minors waiving their right to remain silent than is provided by the Fifth Amendment); State v. Moore, 79 Wn.2d 51, 57, 483 P.2d 630 (1971) (“The Washington constitutional provision against self-incrimination envisions the same guarantee as that provided in the federal constitution. There is no compelling justification for its expansion.”).
- With respect to Miranda, Const. art. I, § 9 is arguably less protective than the Fifth Amendment. The Washington Supreme Court stated in numerous cases that it was unnecessary to advise a suspect that she was not obligated to answer questions. See, e.g., State v. Brownlow, 89 Wash. 582, 154 P. 1099 (1916); State v. Boyer, 61 Wn.2d 484, 486-87, 378 P.2d 936 (1963). In fact, less than a year before the United States Supreme Court decided Miranda, the Court indicated in State v. Craig, 67 Wn.2d 77, 83, 406 P.2d 599 (1965), that:
[E]veryone suspected of a crime or charged therewith has the right to voluntarily speak or act, or refrain from doing so, without having sections of the state and federal constitutions recited to him before he can exercise that right… Where such voluntary act tends to link him with [a] crime …, should we disregard his freedom to speak and to write in order to save him, the wrongdoer, from paying for his crime and forget his victims entirely? If so, we are guilty of coddling the criminal and are, in effect abrogating the laws enacted for the protection of society in its person and property.
3. Fifth Amendment right can take effect in one of two ways:
- Suspect states, “I do not wish to answer any questions without my lawyer”
- The suspect is taken into custody and interrogated by a police officer.
i. Once a person is taken “into custody” (advised they are under arrest and/or have their freedom of movement curtailed to the same extent as that normally associated with formal arrest) and “interrogated”, any statement is presumed to be involuntary.
For information on serving legal papers visit www.undisputedlegal.com or call (800) 774-6922 representatives are available Monday-Friday 8 am – 8 pm EST. If you found this article helpful please consider giving a donation. Thank you for following our blog, A space dedicated to bringing you news on breaking legal developments, interesting articles for law professionals, and educational material for all. We hope that you enjoy your time on our blog and visit us again!