Boyle v. Buck, 4D03-4134.
Decision Date | 05 November 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 4D03-4134.,4D03-4134. |
Citation | 858 So.2d 391 |
Parties | Gene William BOYLE, Petitioner, v. Yolanda R. BUCK, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Billy Lacy Buck, deceased, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
No brief filed for respondent.
This case involves the review of an order in a civil case compelling production of a car for inspection, over a defendant's assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. We deny the petition because the privilege does not apply to an object, such as a car, which does not involve testimony or communications.
Petitioner, Gene William Boyle, is a defendant in two lawsuits arising from a crash where his Porsche struck and killed a motorcyclist. In a criminal case, the state has charged him with leaving the scene of an accident involving a death. In a civil case, the victim's family has filed a wrongful death action.
The plaintiffs in the civil case sought to inspect Boyle's Porsche. The state had filed the criminal case without locating the car. According to the probable cause affidavit, the police identified the Porsche through a speciality license tag, located the repair shop where it had been taken in the past, and obtained information indicating that Boyle was the car's owner and its driver at the time of the crash.
On October 20, 2003, the judge in the civil case overruled Boyle's objection to the production of his car for inspection, which raised the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Boyle seeks certiorari review of this order.
Certiorari will lie to review an order compelling discovery in a civil case over an objection that the order violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See, e.g., Magid v. Winter, 654 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The reviewing court must determine whether the trial court's discovery order departed from the essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm to the petitioner.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. Amend. V; see also Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. This protection exists primarily to "assure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action." Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 461, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975).
One aspect of the privilege against self-incrimination is a witness's right in a civil proceeding to refuse to respond to a question on the grounds that his answer may tend to incriminate him. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
During discovery in a civil case, a litigant may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege when the litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that the response to a discovery request would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against the litigant. See Magid, 654 So.2d at 1038-39; see also Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 266 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983) ( ).
The Fifth Amendment privilege does not shield every kind of incriminating evidence. Rather, it protects only testimonial or communicative evidence, not real or physical evidence which is not testimonial or communicative in nature. See Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Thus, a person may be compelled to provide speech or writing exemplars, provided that "his speech or writing exemplars are not sought to disclose any knowledge that he might have." St. George v. State, 564 So.2d 152, 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ( ).
Florida courts have required disclosure of various types of non-testimonial evidence over a Fifth Amendment objection. See, e.g., Gorby v. State, 630 So.2d 544 (Fla.1993) (tattoos); Macias v. State, 515 So.2d 206 (Fla.1987) (voice exemplars); Wyche v. State, 536 So.2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (fingerprinting); Doe v. State, 409 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (bullet removal); State v. Esperti, 220 So.2d 416 (Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
G.A.Q.L. v. State, 4D18-1811
...to review order compelling answers to deposition questions and overruling Fifth Amendment privilege objections); cf. Boyle v. Buck , 858 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Our standard of review when considering whether to issue such a writ is "whether the trial court ... departed from the......
-
Aguila v. Frederic
...privilege against self-incrimination." McKay v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 876 So. 2d 666, 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Boyle v. Buck, 858 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ). "The reviewing court must determine whether the trial court's discovery order departed from the essential requiremen......
-
Wahnon v. Coral & Stones Unlimited Corp.
...2020). The question here thus turns to whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Boyle v. Buck, 858 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The Fifth Amendment provides no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Amend......
-
Garcia v. State
...that the order violates the Fifth Amendment, Appel v. Bard , 154 So. 3d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Boyle v. Buck , 858 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ), we similarly conclude that we have certiorari jurisdiction to review the instant order to compel. Notably, and as specif......
-
Privileges
...in nature. An order requiring production of a Porsche in a wrongful death action is not testimonial or communicative. Boyle v. Buck , 858 So.2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). NOTEWORTHY CASES Fischer v. E.F. Hutton & Co. Where Fifth Amendment privilege is claimed, a specific objection must be mad......
-
Witness
...not vicariously assert that right on behalf of the driver who was its employee because the privilege was personal one. Boyle v. Buck , 858 So. 2d 391, 392-93 (Fla. Dist. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2003). During discovery in a civil case, a litigant may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against s......