William J. Brennan, Jr.

Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. California v. Byers — Dissent

If the individual's ability in any particular case to perceive a genuine risk of self-incrimination is to be a sufficient condition for imposition of use restrictions on the government in all self-reporting contexts, then the privilege threatens the capacity of the government to respond to societal needs with a realistic mixture of criminal sanctions and other regulatory devices.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. California v. Byers — Dissent

Although, strictly speaking, the only question before us is whether respondent may be punished for failing to comply with the statutory requirement at issue, [12] I am constrained to add that I cannot agree with the California Supreme Court's conclusion that the requirement may be enforced if the State is merely precluded from using the compelled evidence and its fruits in a criminal prosecution.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. California v. Byers — Dissent

Put briefly, one of the primary flaws of the plurality opinion is that it bears so little relationship to the case before us. Notwithstanding the fact that respondent was charged both with a violation of the California Vehicle Code which resulted in an accident, and with failing to report the accident and its surrounding circumstances as required by the statute under review, the plurality concludes, contrary to all three California courts below, that respondent was faced with no substantial hazard of self-incrimination under California law.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature