Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Name: California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court
Author: Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Portal:Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as driver, incrimination and disclosures.

Quotes from California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ We conclude that there is no conflict between the statute and the privilege.
(1)
Whenever the Court is confronted with the question of a compelled disclosure that has an incriminating potential, the judicial scrutiny is invariably a close one. Tension between the State's demand for disclosures and the protection of the right against self-incrimination is likely to give rise to serious questions. Inevitably these must be resolved in terms of balancing the public need on the one hand, and the individual claim to constitutional protections on the other; neither interest can be treated lightly. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ In each of these situations there is some possibility of prosecution-often a very real one-for criminal offenses disclosed by or deriving from the information that the law compels a person to supply. Information revealed by these reports could well be 'a link in the chain' of evidence leading to prosecution and conviction. But under our holdings the mere possibility of incrimination is insufficient to defeat the strong policies in favor of a disclosure called for by statutes like the one challenged here. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ Moreover, it is not a criminal offense under California law to be a driver 'involved in an accident.' An accident may be the fault of others; it may occur without any driver having been at fault. No empirical data are suggested in support of the conclusion that there is a relevant correlation between being a driver and criminal prosecution of drivers. So far as any available information instructs us, most accidents occur without creating criminal liability even if one or both of the drivers are guilty of negligence as a matter of tort law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ Here the compelled disclosure of identity could have led to a charge that might not have been made had the driver fled the scene; but this is true only in the same sense that a taxpayer can be charged on the basis of the contents of a tax return or failure to file an income tax form. There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return or to flee the scene of an accident in order to avoid the possibility of legal involvement. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ An organized society imposes many burdens on its constituents. It commands the filing of tax returns for income; it requires producers and distributors of consumer goods to file informational reports on the manufacturing process and the content of products, on the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees. Those who borrow money on the public market or issue securities for sale to the public must file various information reports; industries must report periodically the volume and content of pollutants discharged into our waters and atmosphere. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ This case presents the narrow but important question of whether the constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is infringed by California's so-called 'hit and run' statute which requires the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident to stop at the scene and give his name and address. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ The disclosure of inherently illegal activity is inherently risky. Our decisions in Albertson and the cases following illustrate that truism. But disclosures with respect to automobile accidents simply do not entail the kind of substantial risk of self-incrimination involved in Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ Disclosure of name and address is an essentially neutral act. Whatever the collateral consequences of disclosing name and address, the statutory purpose is to implement the state police power to regulate use of motor vehicles. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court

“ In contrast, § 20002 (a) (1) , like income tax laws, is directed at all persons-here all persons who drive automobiles in California. This group, numbering as it does in the millions, is so large as to render § 20002 (a) (1) a statute 'directed at the public at large.' Albertson v. ”

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from California v. Byers — Opinion of the Court (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature