|
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, dissenting.
I would reverse. In my view, petitioner’s privilege against self-incrimination applies. I would add that, under the Due Process Clause, the State, in its role as prosecutor, has no right to extract blood from an accused or anyone else, over his protest. As prosecutor, the State has no right to commit any kind of violence upon the person, or to utilize the results of such a tort, and the extraction of blood, over protest, is an act of violence. Cf. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN’s dissenting opinion in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 440.
Contents:
Chicago: Fortas, "Fortas, J., Dissenting," Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) in 384 U.S. 757 Original Sources, accessed February 12, 2025, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GXBB5UKBQ1E3ZAX.
MLA: Fortas. "Fortas, J., Dissenting." Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), in 384 U.S. 757, Original Sources. 12 Feb. 2025. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GXBB5UKBQ1E3ZAX.
Harvard: Fortas, 'Fortas, J., Dissenting' in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). cited in 1966, 384 U.S. 757. Original Sources, retrieved 12 February 2025, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GXBB5UKBQ1E3ZAX.
|