## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois investigated thefts of interstate shipments.
- Richard J. Mara was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and was informed he was a potential defendant.
- The grand jury directed Mara, through a designated agent, to provide handwriting and printing exemplars on two occasions to compare with writings relevant to the investigation.
- Mara refused each time.
- The Government petitioned the district court to compel the exemplars, stating they were essential to the investigation and would be used only as comparison standards; an FBI agent submitted an in camera affidavit supporting the request.
- The district court ordered compliance; after continued refusal, it held Mara in civil contempt and confined him until compliance or expiration of the grand jury term.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, requiring a preliminary, open-court adversary showing of Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” before enforcing such compulsion.

## Issues

1. Whether compelling a putative defendant to provide handwriting and printing exemplars pursuant to a grand jury directive constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a preliminary judicial showing of “reasonableness” in an adversary proceeding before enforcing a grand jury demand for handwriting exemplars.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the directive to provide handwriting and printing exemplars violated no legitimate Fourth Amendment interest.
- Because the exemplars involved physical characteristics regularly exposed to the public, the Government was not required to make a preliminary showing of reasonableness before enforcement.
- The contempt order for refusal to comply was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Compelled production of handwriting and printing exemplars for identification and comparison generally does not implicate a legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
- A grand jury directive that is specific and narrowly drawn to obtain physical identifying characteristics exposed to public view does not require a prior, particularized judicial determination of Fourth Amendment “reasonableness.”
- Courts may enforce compliance with such grand jury demands through contempt when a witness refuses to provide non-testimonial physical exemplars.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a grand jury may compel handwriting and printing exemplars without a preliminary Fourth Amendment reasonableness showing because such exemplars disclose only publicly exposed physical characteristics and therefore do not invade a protected privacy interest; refusal to comply may be sanctioned by contempt.


United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (1973)