Andresen v. Maryland
427 U.S. 463 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The search for and seizure of a person's business records pursuant to a valid warrant, and their subsequent introduction into evidence in a criminal case, does not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination because the individual is not compelled to say or do anything.
Facts:
- Petitioner Andresen, an attorney specializing in real estate settlements, was investigated by a Maryland fraud unit for his activities related to a property known as Lot 13T.
- Andresen represented to the purchaser of Lot 13T, Standard-Young Associates, that the property was free of liens, despite knowing that two outstanding liens existed.
- When the lienholders threatened foreclosure, which halted the purchaser's construction, Standard-Young confronted Andresen.
- In response, Andresen issued a title insurance policy guaranteeing clear title, thereby defrauding the insurance company which was then required to pay the outstanding liens.
- Investigators also learned of similar fraudulent misrepresentations made by Andresen to three other home purchasers in the same subdivision.
Procedural Posture:
- Investigators obtained warrants to search Andresen's law office and corporate office from a Maryland state judge.
- Andresen was charged in a Maryland trial court with false pretenses and fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary.
- Andresen filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the seized documents, arguing they were obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress with respect to the key evidence, and a jury subsequently convicted Andresen.
- Andresen, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the relevant convictions, rejecting Andresen's Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the federal constitutional issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the seizure of an individual's business records pursuant to a valid search warrant and their subsequent admission into evidence at a criminal trial compel that individual to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. The search of an individual’s office for business records, their seizure, and subsequent introduction into evidence do not offend the Fifth Amendment's proscription against compelled self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects against compulsion, not the disclosure of private information. In this case, petitioner was not asked to say or do anything; the statements in the records were voluntarily committed to writing before the search. The law enforcement personnel conducted the search and seizure, and the documents were authenticated at trial by a handwriting expert, not by the petitioner. This situation is distinct from a subpoena, where the act of production itself can be a compelled testimonial communication. The privilege adheres to the person, not to incriminating information that may be obtained from them through a valid search.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. The seizure of petitioner's business records violates the Fifth Amendment. There is no meaningful distinction between compelling the production of records through a subpoena and seizing them against the individual's will with a warrant. A search and seizure is rife with compulsion, as the individual is not free to resist the state's authority. The Fifth Amendment protects a 'zone of privacy' which includes a sole practitioner's business records, and allowing the government to circumvent this protection through the expedient of a search and seizure renders the privilege a 'hollow guarantee.' Additionally, the warrants were impermissibly general due to the catch-all phrase authorizing seizure of 'other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime,' which gave investigators unconstitutional discretion.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
This opinion does not directly answer the Fifth Amendment issue. I agree with Justice Brennan that the business records should have been suppressed because they were seized pursuant to an unconstitutional general warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider the petitioner's alternative argument under the Fifth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the Fifth Amendment's protection for private papers, which had been broadly interpreted since Boyd v. United States. The Court established a critical distinction between compelled testimonial acts, such as responding to a subpoena, and the seizure of pre-existing evidence via a search warrant. By focusing on the absence of personal compulsion on the accused during a search, the ruling makes it significantly easier for the government to obtain incriminating documentary evidence. This holding shifts the Fifth Amendment's focus from protecting the privacy of incriminating information to protecting the individual from being compelled to perform a testimonial act.
Unlock the full brief for Andresen v. Maryland