Lefkowitz v. Turley: 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73). "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."

McCarthy v. Arndstein: 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed 158 (1924), squarely held that "the privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used.  It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant."

Maness v. Myers: 95 S Ct. 584, 419 US 449 (1975). "...where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is Involved ... This Court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action... The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Hoffman v. United States, 341 US. 479, 486, 71 S. Ct. 814, 818, 95 L. Ed. 1] 18 (1951). "

In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U S 441, 92 S Ct. 1653, 32 LEd. 212 (1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination (5th Amedment) can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory Id., at 444, 92 S.Ct., at 1656; Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 US. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316, 322, 38 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1973)...

Miranda v. Arizona: 86 S.Ct. 1602, 384 US 436 (1966).  "We have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential mainstay of our adversary system-is founded on a complex of values ... To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load ... to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the' evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth... ln sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will."  "...there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside. of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves."