## Facts

- Terry B. Allen faced Illinois criminal charges for unlawful restraint and deviate sexual assault.
- While the criminal case was pending, the State sought to have Allen adjudicated a “sexually dangerous person” under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.
- The trial court ordered Allen to undergo two psychiatric examinations.
- At a bench trial on the petition, the State presented testimony from the examining psychiatrists that relied in part on Allen’s statements during the examinations.
- Allen objected that use of those statements violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- The trial court found Allen to be sexually dangerous and ordered his commitment under the Act.
- The Illinois Appellate Court reversed on self-incrimination grounds, but the Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the commitment, treating the proceeding as civil.
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether proceedings under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act are “criminal” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, barring use of compelled statements to court-appointed psychiatrists.
2. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause independently requires application of the Fifth Amendment privilege in these proceedings even if they are classified as civil.

## Decision

- The Court held that proceedings under the Act are not “criminal” for Fifth Amendment purposes.
- The Act’s stated aim is treatment rather than punishment; requiring proof of a mental disorder and propensity for sexual assault supported the civil characterization.
- The availability of criminal-type safeguards (counsel, jury trial, confrontation, proof beyond a reasonable doubt) did not convert the proceeding into a criminal prosecution.
- Commitment to a maximum-security institution that also houses convicts needing psychiatric care did not, by itself, make the confinement “punishment” or the proceeding criminal.
- Due process did not require importing the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege into the Act’s civil commitment process.
- The admission of the psychiatrists’ testimony based on Allen’s statements was constitutionally permissible, and the commitment order stood.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause applies to compelled testimony used “in any criminal case”; it does not automatically apply in civil commitment proceedings that are genuinely treatment-oriented rather than punitive.
- Legislative classification as “civil,” supported by nonpunitive purposes and structure, is substantial evidence that a proceeding is not criminal for Fifth Amendment purposes.
- The presence of procedural protections commonly associated with criminal trials does not, without more, transform a civil proceeding into a criminal one.
- Confinement in a secure psychiatric facility, including one that also holds certain convicted persons, does not alone establish punishment.
- The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause does not require extending the Fifth Amendment privilege to such civil commitment proceedings where the process includes substantial procedural protections.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Illinois’ use of compelled psychiatric-examination statements in a sexually dangerous person commitment proceeding, ruling that the proceeding was civil and treatment-focused, not a “criminal case” triggering the Fifth Amendment privilege, and that due process did not require applying the privilege anyway.


Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (1986)