“For the privilege to apply, however, the government must try to compel a person to make a ‘testimonial’ statement that would tend to incriminate him or her. When a person has a valid privilege against self-incrimination, nobody — not even a judge — can force the witness to give that information to the government. But a communication is ‘testimonial’ only when it reveals the contents of your mind. We can’t invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Why? Because the courts have decided that this evidence doesn’t reveal anything you know. It’s not testimonial.”
Related posts:
Bill Bonner: Reefer Madness!
European Space Agency ponders asteroid-smashing mission
FBI releases April 2013 NICS report; January through April renunciations up by 78%
Tell me again… which of these nations is communist?
Offshore Jurisdiction Review: Malta
Libertarian state senate candidate gets arrested at pro-marijuana rally
The Birth of a New Bull Market
Tennessee judge changes baby’s name after ruling it a conflict with her beliefs
IRS says hundreds of thousands of US citizens are not reporting Canadian trusts
Median CEO Pay Crosses $10 Million in 2013
The Gun Grabbers are Stirring
Jury Nullifies Charge Against Pot Grower Who Shot and Killed a Cop
Capital Controls Rolling Into High Gear Under FATCA
30,000 people can access Ohio driver’s license database with no oversight
Kucinich defends tea party groups against IRS on ‘Fox News Sunday’