In a bank robbery lineup, a suspect was required to utter the words spoken by the robber and was identified by a teller who heard the words. The suspect moves to suppress the lineup as a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. Should the lineup identification be suppressed?

• A. Yes, because lineup violates privilege by forcing confession.
• B. No, because compelled to utter the words is not testimonial; It's not protected.
• C. Yes, because the act of speaking is testimonial.
• D. No, because the teller can rely on the voice recognition.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that the Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimony—communications that reveal the contents of a person’s mind or beliefs. Forcing a defendant to utter the robber’s exact words in a lineup doesn’t reveal his thoughts about guilt or admission of wrongdoing; it produces a voice sample. Voice exemplars and similar non- testimonial physical evidence are not protected by the privilege. So the lineup identification isn’t suppressed on Fifth Amendment grounds.

This reasoning aligns with the principle that lineup procedures can be used to identify a suspect without forcing a confession; the identification comes from the witness’s recognition of the defendant’s voice, not from the defendant articulating guilt. Therefore, the compelled speaking in this context is not protected, and the lineup identification should stand.

The other options miss this nuance: forcing someone to speak to imitate the robber’s words isn’t a confession (so no automatic suppression), and the act isn’t testimonial in nature even though it involves speaking. While the teller’s ability to recognize the voice matters for reliability, the core reason it isn’t suppressed is that voice exemplars are non-testimonial evidence.