Amendment which declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634-35, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886) (emphasis added). However, this seemingly broad holding has been limited over the years. United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 253, 100 S. Ct. 2636, 65 L. Ed. 2d 742 (1980). Under Boyd and its progeny, the “government may not abrogate the accused’s privilege against self-incrimination by electing the vehicle of a nominally civil proceeding, when in reality, punishment for activity which violates the criminal law is being imposed.” In re Daley, 549 F.2d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 1977). A civil action is sufficiently criminal in nature if “[i]ts object, like a criminal proce , 784-85, 946 P.2d 1196 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we must decide whether a disciplinary
holding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy apply to a defendant prosecuted as an habitual criminal holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy holding that suspension of a drivers license for conduct already sanctioned in a criminal case did not violate defendants constitutional rights against double jeopardy because it served a remedial purpose beyond the criminal penalties holding that the suspension or revocation of a drivers license is not a sanction which once imposed precludes the application of criminal sanctions holding in materially identical circumstances that an administrative license suspension did not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes