Abstract
The writer respectfully disagrees with the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Schmerber as standing for the proposition that such compelled evidence is admissible under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In Schmerber the court merely recognized the evidential distinction between real and testimonial or communicative evidence and ruled that the distinction was determinative in that case. The court acknowledged that there are many possible situations in which the distinction could not so readily be applied. It is submitted that the facts of the instant case present one of those situations.
Recommended Citation
Brumbach, Charles P.
(1969)
"Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right to Compel a Suspect to Perform Physical Acts; City of Piqua v. Hinger,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 2:
Iss.
2, Article 5.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol2/iss2/5