[Leaving the scene of an accident (section 142 StGB) from the legal viewpoint and in relation to the "nemo tenetur rule"].

(1) First, the author explains the far from clear surrounding facts of prohibited "illegally leaving the scene of an accident" offence (section 142 StGB). The main structure of this questionnably indefinite offence in case (also constitutionally) is explained, drawing upon the newest jurisdiction. (2) The author is of the opinion that punishment of the "driver's escape after road accident" is highly problematic, not in small part due to the mitigating principle of protection against self-incrimination (which is also constitutionally guaranteed) ("nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare"). Therefore the authors sees the heavy-handed compromise of the section 142 StGB (newly constituted in 1975), less as a show of legislative incompetence or the draftsmen's inability, than the earnest attempt of legislators to tread the fine line between tolerable encroachment upon the right to not incriminate oneself, and down right violation of the "nemo-tenetur"-principle with its constitutional impact. (3) Against this backdrop the author looks for practicable and suitable alternatives out of the dogmatic thicket of existing law. (4) The problems of interpretation of section 142 Abs. 1 StGB with regard to the question of not incriminating oneself (duty to submit one's papers on request and duty to wait) become apparent in connection with the question of how long an -alcoholic- participant of an accident must wait for the police when demanded to do so by the person involved in the accident. (5) The programme of duties specified in section 142 Abs. 2 and 3 StGB is interest primarily with regard to the question of wether the "Immediacy" -rule of reporting delayed assessments give the delinquent the right of choice between calling the police, the injured person or other agencies (insurance company, etc.).