Facts
Parties: Appellant X. against the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Lucerne
Court: Court of Cassation of the Federal Supreme Court
Date: December 22, 2004
Facts: On July 17, 2002, X. caused a sideswipe collision with an oncoming vehicle in Triengen. X. did not stop and was only encountered by the police the next day. A breath test was positive, and the blood sample showed an alcohol concentration between 0.61 and 0.97 per mille. X. stated that he had gone home and drunk two coffees with plum schnapps. The Higher Court of the Canton of Lucerne convicted X. of insufficient driving on the right, negligent behavior after an accident with third-party damage, and obstructing a blood sample.
Main question: Does the conviction for obstructing a blood sample violate the prohibition of self-incrimination (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare)?
Considerations
The appellant challenges his conviction for obstructing a blood sample, considering it a violation of the prohibition of self-incrimination. The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the conviction is compatible with international and national legal norms.
The court establishes that the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident with third-party damage has certain behavioral obligations regulated by law. These obligations serve to determine the identity and clarify the facts. Violating these obligations can fulfill both the offense of negligent behavior after an accident and that of obstructing a blood sample.
The nemo-tenetur principle, which includes the right to remain silent and the prohibition of self-incrimination, applies in the relationship between the individual and state authorities. The behavioral obligations after an accident, which directly or indirectly…