HASELTON, P.J.

Appellant Tamara Sawyer (Sawyer)1 challenges a judgment of summary contempt, ORS 33.096, based on her refusal to produce documents and answer certain questions in a judgment debtor examination arising from a money judgment that plaintiffs secured against the defendant corporation, Starboard, LLC. She argues, in part, that the trial court erred in directing her to answer those questions and produce documents, and in imposing sanctions, notwithstanding her invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As amplified below, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that Sawyer was not entitled to invoke the privilege and, consequently, in imposing contempt sanctions for her refusal to comply with its directives. Accordingly, we reverse.

The relevant facts are undisputed. In May 2008, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Starboard, seeking payment on several delinquent promissory notes. In March 2009, plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Starboard for over $900,000, including interest and attorney fees. After the judgment was entered, Tamara and Kevin Sawyer were ordered to appear for a judgment debtor examination, ORS 18.265(1), and to produce certain documents pertaining to Starboard's property and its financial affairs.2 Previously, Tamara Sawyer had made public statements as to her and her husband's involvement with Starboard's assets and its business dealings.

At the time the judgment debtor examination was to be held, published reports indicated that the Sawyers and Starboard were the subjects of a criminal investigation by the FBI and that Starboard was under investigation by the IRS. Indeed, it is undisputed for the purposes of our review that Tamara Sawyer was, in fact, a "target" of a continuing federal criminal investigation involving, inter alia, Starboard.

The debtor examination, held May 18, 2009, was attended by the Sawyers and counsel for Starboard. The Sawyers, invoking the privilege against self-incrimination, refused to answer plaintiffs' questions or produce any documents, whereupon plaintiffs initiated contempt proceedings against them seeking "remedial" sanctions.3

The first contempt hearing was held on August 6, 2009. At that hearing, the Sawyers again stated their intention to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination as to plaintiffs' questions and requests for the production of documents. The trial court determined that the best course of action was to continue the hearing so that it could preside over the debtor examination and rule on the Sawyers' invocations of the privilege on a "question-by-question basis." See Empire Wholesale Lumber Co. v. Meyers, 192 Or.App. 221, 226, 85 P.3d 339 (2004) (privilege "must be invoked, and ruled upon, on a question-by-question, document-by-document basis"). Accordingly, the trial court continued the contempt proceedings to October 5, 2009.

At the October 5 hearing, plaintiffs, Kevin Sawyer, and Tamara Sawyer—who was represented by counsel—appeared. No person appeared for Starboard, and Starboard was not represented by counsel. Kevin Sawyer was first sworn and called to testify. Plaintiffs asked Kevin Sawyer about his "position past or present with Starboard," and he invoked the privilege under Article I, section 12, and the Fifth Amendment. Tamara Sawyer's counsel contended that Kevin Sawyer's invocation of the privilege was proper because answering plaintiffs' question

The trial court, reasoning that, because Kevin Sawyer's status with respect to Starboard "should be a public record, and so it's discoverable [in] * * * other ways," ruled that the privilege did not apply and held Kevin Sawyer in contempt for not answering.

Plaintiffs then asked Kevin Sawyer, "[W]hich of [the requested] documents have you produced today?" and Kevin Sawyer again invoked the privilege. The trial court, after hearing further argument as to what sanction for contempt against Kevin Sawyer should be imposed, took the matter under advisement.4

Tamara Sawyer was next placed under oath, and plaintiffs asked the following question:

(Emphasis added.) Sawyer refused to answer, invoking the privilege under Article I, section 12, and the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs' counsel asserted that "[t]he Fifth Amendment does not apply to that broad a question." Sawyer's counsel, renewing the contentions that had been expressed with respect to Kevin Sawyer, remonstrated:

The trial court then asked Sawyer's counsel to explain why an answer to that question was potentially incriminating, and counsel responded:

The trial court, apparently rejecting that reasoning, advised Sawyer that her answer was not privileged and ordered her to respond. Again, she declined to do so.

Plaintiffs then asked Sawyer whether she had "brought any of [the] * * * documents today as ordered" by their subpoena and the court's citation to the debtor examination. Sawyer again invoked the state and federal privileges against self-incrimination, whereupon the following colloquy ensued:

The trial court issued the following ruling from the bench at the conclusion of the October 5 hearing:

The court once again continued the hearing—to October 30—to entertain arguments from the parties as to what sanctions to impose.

On October 30, the trial court reiterated its determination that the Sawyers were both in summary contempt. The court ordered both Sawyers to relinquish their passports and Tamara Sawyer to report to custody on November 6, 2009. Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, entered November 5, 2009, in which it stated that it had found Tamara Sawyer to be in summary contempt.5 Sawyer filed a notice of appeal from that judgment the same day.6

On appeal, Sawyer raises five assignments of error. In her first two assignments of error, Sawyer challenges the trial court's rulings that she must respond to the plaintiffs' questions as to her connection to Starboard and for the production of documents over her assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. Sawyer's third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error pertain to the procedural propriety of the trial court's imposition of summary contempt, see ORS 33.096, and the sanction it imposed.

With respect to whether Sawyer properly invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, the parties generally reprise and refine the arguments they made before the trial court. In particular, Sawyer contends that the trial court "employed incorrect standards under both the Oregon and federal constitutions in rejecting [Sawyer's] assertion of privilege." Plaintiffs respond, in essence, that Sawyer failed to establish that her fear of incrimination was reasonable under the circumstances because plaintiffs' questions did not elicit incriminating information. Rather, plaintiffs maintain, Sawyer's "refusal to follow the court's order was * * * motivated [solely] to prevent plaintiffs from conducting a debtor's examination * * * concerning Starboard's assets." We conclude, for the reasons that follow, that the trial court erred in its determination that Sawyer's invocation of the privilege was unavailing. Accordingly, we reverse on that basis and do not address the other, alternative, assignments of error.

Before turning to the merits, we clarify our standard of review. Here, the operative facts are uncontroverted. Specifically, the parties do not dispute either that Sawyer willfully violated the court's order to testify or that, at the time that she refused to comply with the court's directives, she was, in fact, the "target" of a federal criminal investigation pertaining, in part, to Starboard. Rather, the dispute centers on whether the trial court erred in overriding Sawyer's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. We review the trial court's conclusion as to the applicability of a privilege in this context for errors of law. See State v. Langley, 314 Or. 247, 263, 839 P.2d 692 (1992), adh'd to on recons., 318 Or. 28, 861 P.2d 1012 (1993) (reviewing, for errors of law, the trial court's determination that the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not apply).7

Although Sawyer invoked the privilege under Article I, section 12, as well as the Fifth Amendment, both parties have conflated their analyses of the two constitutional provisions, with neither proposing a distinct analysis under Article I, section 12, or arguing against our adoption of the federal standard. Indeed, in material respects, much of the parties' briefing focuses on cases construing the privilege's application under the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, although we typically consider arguments raised under the Oregon Constitution before considering those raised under federal constitution, State v. Kennedy, 295 Or. 260, 262-68, 666 P.2d 1316 (1983) (describing methodology), we will focus on the privilege as it applies under the Fifth Amendment. See Dept. of Human Services v. K.L.R., 235 Or.App. 1, 5, 230 P.3d 49 (2010) (choosing to analyze privilege only under the Fifth Amendment where the appellant did not "develop[] a separate analysis under the Oregon Constitution"). But cf. State v. Tenbusch, 131 Or.App. 634, 641, 886 P.2d 1077 (1994), rev. den., 320 Or. 587, 890 P.2d 993, cert. den., 516 U.S. 991, 116 S.Ct. 523, 133 L.Ed.2d 430 (1995) (analyzing the Oregon and federal constitutional privileges together "because the protections are similar").

The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person shall be * * * compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." That privilege protects a person from being compelled to testify in any proceeding—including civil proceedings—when the answers may incriminate the person in a future criminal prosecution. See, e.g., Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 464, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975) (reaffirming the principle, in the context of a civil case, that "the privilege against self-incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory" (internal quotation marks omitted)). The privilege pertains not only to inquiries that would be directly incriminating, but also "embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence" needed to prosecute a crime. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). Thus, as we have previously explained:

Empire Wholesale Lumber Co., 192 Or.App. at 226-27, 85 P.3d 339.

In determining whether the privilege applies, the trial court must evaluate, with respect to each question for which the privilege is claimed, whether "the answer to that particular question would subject the witness to a real danger of * * * crimination," as opposed to "a mere imaginary possibility of increasing the danger of prosecution." Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 374-75, 71 S.Ct. 438, 95 L.Ed. 344 (1951) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stating the standard as "whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and `real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination").

In making that assessment, the witness must not be "required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court," lest the witness "surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486, 71 S.Ct. 814. Accordingly,

Id. at 486-87, 71 S.Ct. 814 (emphasis added). Although the witness claiming the privilege bears the burden of establishing that an answer could be injurious, the court must construe the privilege liberally "in favor of the right it was intended to secure." Id. at 486, 71 S.Ct. 814. Thus, it must be "perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness [claiming the privilege] is mistaken, and that the answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate." Id. at 488, 71 S.Ct. 814 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted; emphasis in original).

Further, the protections afforded by the privilege are not abrogated merely because the government may have access from another source to the same information sought to be compelled from the witness. That is so for at least two reasons. First, as a practical matter, such an exception would substantially subvert—and perhaps abrogate —the constitutional protection.8 Second, evidence compelled from "the speaker's own mouth" can convey inculpatory implications that are uniquely, qualitatively different than those attending other evidence. See, e.g., Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 421-22, 77 S.Ct. 963, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957) (witness was justified in invoking privilege in grand jury proceedings, despite decision to testify at trial, based on legitimate concern that he "would have provided the Government with incriminating evidence from his own mouth").

Finally, the privilege can also extend to protect against the act of production in circumstances where the production of documents has a "protected testimonial aspect[ ]," United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted), viz., the act "explicitly or implicitly * * * relate[s] a factual assertion or disclose[s] information." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210, 108 S.Ct. 2341, 101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988). The act of production may communicate such statements of fact, where, for example, "[b]y producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (internal quotation marks omitted).

With those principles in mind, we return to the specific circumstances and questions posed to Sawyer in this case. Here, the potential for self-incrimination was patent. At the time Sawyer invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, published reports indicated that she was under federal investigation for conduct relating to the financial affairs and business dealings of Starboard— and, as noted, it is undisputed that she was, in fact, the target of a pending federal criminal investigation. The information sought by the creditors in this case—indeed as evinced by plaintiffs' express focus in the debtor examination —was calculated to explore and expose precisely the nature and contours of Sawyer's relationship to Starboard and its (potentially criminally inculpatory) financial affairs.

In that context, it was not "perfectly clear," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 488, 71 S.Ct. 814 (emphasis omitted), that a responsive answer to plaintiffs' initial, "broad" question to Sawyer— viz., "what has been your past and your present connection with Starboard LLC?" (emphasis added)—"[could not] possibly have [a] tendency to incriminate" or that "injurious disclosure" would not result. See Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 487-88, 71 S.Ct. 814 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). By answering that question, Sawyer risked disclosing the nature, duration, and degree of her involvement with and authority (if any) over the affairs of Starboard—evidence that might well be used in a future criminal proceeding to establish her responsibility for the activities that were under investigation by the FBI and the IRS. Although some of that same information may have been available from other sources, including public records or Sawyer's own public statements months before, at the very least, some aspects of a responsive answer to that question would have necessarily disclosed potentially inculpatory information that was only available from Sawyer herself.

We reach the same result as to plaintiffs' question as to whether Sawyer, in her personal capacity, had "brought any of [the] * * * [Starboard] documents today as ordered" by their subpoena and the court's citation to the debtor examination. That request essentially called on Sawyer to "explicitly or implicitly * * * relate a factual assertion or disclose information," as to the existence of the documents, her knowledge or possession of them, her belief that the records were those described in the subpoena, and, conceivably, their authenticity. See Doe, 487 U.S. at 210, 108 S.Ct. 2341. In light of the totality of the uncontroverted circumstances of this case, there was a "substantial," Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 53, 88 S.Ct. 697, and "real danger," Rogers, 340 U.S. at 374, 71 S.Ct. 438 (internal quotation marks omitted), that such testimonial assertions could be used to "furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute * * * [a] crime," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486, 71 S.Ct. 814.

In the end, we, like the trial court, appreciate that plaintiffs have a real and valid interest in executing their judgment against Starboard. Nor are we unmindful of their frustrations in being constrained in that effect, at least so long as Sawyer's purported criminal involvement with Starboard remains unresolved. Nevertheless, so long as that proximate exposure to criminal liability remains, Sawyer's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination as to the inquiries at issue here cannot be contravened. Accordingly, the trial court erred in adjudging Sawyer in contempt.

Reversed.