The (Un?)Constitutionality of Compelling Non-Immunized Testimony in Deceptive Trade Practices Investigations Conducted by the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas

T. Cain
{"title":"The (Un?)Constitutionality of Compelling Non-Immunized Testimony in Deceptive Trade Practices Investigations Conducted by the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas","authors":"T. Cain","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2476110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Attorney General of the State of Arkansas has the statutory authority to investigate allegations of violations of Arkansas's prohibition on deceptive trade practices. Under this authority, the Attorney General can conduct investigations and file civil enforcement lawsuits. In conducting an investigation, the Attorney General can compel the target of the investigation to produce documents and give a deposition. A violation of Arkansas's prohibition on deceptive trade practices is a civil offense and a crime. Arkansas's' Attorney General, however, does not have the authority to prosecute criminal cases, nor can that office offer a person immunity from a criminal prosecution. Thus, the Attorney General can compel the target of a deceptive trade practices act investigation to produce testimonial evidence that can be used against that target in later criminal prosecution. Because a violation of Arkansas's ban on deceptive trade practices is a criminal offense, and because the Attorney General lacks the authority to grant a person immunity from a criminal prosecution, the Attorney General's authority to compel the target of a deceptive trade practices investigation to produce non-immunized testimonial evidence violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This paper explains why that is so, and offers recommendations on how the Arkansas General Assembly can cure the Fifth Amendment problem without adversely impacting the Attorney General's authority to investigate and put an end to deceptive trade practices.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2476110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Attorney General of the State of Arkansas has the statutory authority to investigate allegations of violations of Arkansas's prohibition on deceptive trade practices. Under this authority, the Attorney General can conduct investigations and file civil enforcement lawsuits. In conducting an investigation, the Attorney General can compel the target of the investigation to produce documents and give a deposition. A violation of Arkansas's prohibition on deceptive trade practices is a civil offense and a crime. Arkansas's' Attorney General, however, does not have the authority to prosecute criminal cases, nor can that office offer a person immunity from a criminal prosecution. Thus, the Attorney General can compel the target of a deceptive trade practices act investigation to produce testimonial evidence that can be used against that target in later criminal prosecution. Because a violation of Arkansas's ban on deceptive trade practices is a criminal offense, and because the Attorney General lacks the authority to grant a person immunity from a criminal prosecution, the Attorney General's authority to compel the target of a deceptive trade practices investigation to produce non-immunized testimonial evidence violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This paper explains why that is so, and offers recommendations on how the Arkansas General Assembly can cure the Fifth Amendment problem without adversely impacting the Attorney General's authority to investigate and put an end to deceptive trade practices.
联合国(?)阿肯色州总检察长进行的欺骗性贸易行为调查中令人信服的非免疫证词的合规性
阿肯色州司法部长有法定权力调查违反阿肯色州禁止欺诈贸易行为的指控。根据这项授权,司法部长可以进行调查并提起民事执法诉讼。在进行调查时,司法部长可以强迫调查对象出示文件并提供证词。违反阿肯色州禁止欺诈贸易行为的规定是一种民事犯罪和犯罪行为。然而,阿肯色州的司法部长没有起诉刑事案件的权力,也不能让一个人免于刑事起诉。因此,司法部长可以强迫欺骗性贸易行为调查的对象提供证词证据,以便在以后的刑事起诉中对该对象不利。由于违反阿肯色州对欺诈贸易行为的禁令是一种刑事犯罪,而且由于司法部长无权给予个人免于刑事起诉的豁免权,因此,司法部长有权迫使欺诈贸易行为调查的对象提供不受豁免的证词证据,这违反了第五修正案关于不自证其罪的特权。本文解释了为什么会这样,并就阿肯色州议会如何在不影响司法部长调查和终止欺骗性贸易行为的权力的情况下解决第五修正案问题提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信