must include the same wording as the questioned document, written twenty times. Indeed, such repetition allows an expert handwriting analyst to evaluate, inter alia, whether the defendant was purposefully attempting to conceal idiosyn-cracies of his own handwriting style when producing the exemplar. See generally Forensic Identification of Handwriting, 27 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts 3rd 489 (updated Sept. 2005). 6 . It has also been held that "[h]andwriting and voice exemplars fall on the side of the line where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists... and consequently outside of the protection of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Nix, 465 F.2d 90, 93 (5th Cir.1972) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 21-22, 93 S.Ct. 774, 35 L.Ed.2d 99 (1973) (<HOLDING>). 7 . See, e.g., United States v. Knight, 607
holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment holding that both fourth amendment warrant and probable cause and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to civil forfeiture proceedings recognizing that in addition to the fifth amendment there also is no legitimate fourth amendment interest violated by the compulsory production of characteristics exposed to the public recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern holding that arrest in backyard violated fourth amendment