Document: 465 U.S. 605 104 S.Ct. 1237 79 L.Ed.2d 552 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.John DOE. No. 82-786. Argued Dec. 7, 1983. Decided Feb. 28, 1984. Syllabus During a federal grand jury investigation of corruption in the awarding county and municipal contracts, subpoenas were served on respondent owner sole proprietorships demanding production certain business records several his companies. Respondent then filed motion Federal District Court seeking to quash subpoenas. The granted (except as required by law be kept or disclosed public agency), finding that act producing would involve testimonial self-incrimination. Appeals affirmed, holding privileged, them also have "communicative aspects its own" turning over admit their existence, possession, authenticity, hence was entitled assert Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination rather than produce records. court further held view Government's failure make formal request for use immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 6003, it proper reject attempt compel delivery Held: 1. contents subpoenaed question are not privileged Amendment. That only protects person asserting from Fisher v. United States, 425 391, 396, 96 1569, 1573, 48 39. Where preparation is voluntary, no compulsion present. Here, does claim he prepared involuntarily force him restate, repeat, affirm truth records' contents. fact possession irrelevant determination whether creation compelled. Pp. 610-612. 2. documents at issue this case privileged. 612-614. 3. cannot without statutory grant pursuant 6003. This will extend jurisdiction courts include prospective grants doctrine constructive (as Government urges), absence statute requires. 614-617. 680 F.2d 327 (3d Cir.1982), affirmed part, reversed remanded. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Newark, N.J., petitioner. Richard T. Philips, respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 presents whether, what extent, applies proprietorship. 2 * proprietorships. In late 1980, jury, during course an five first two demanded telephone respondent's companies all pertaining four bank accounts limited period between January 1, 1977 dates third subpoena list virtually one 1976, date subpoena.1 fourth sought similar belonging another company.2 final statements cancelled checks had Grand Cayman Islands. II 3 district New Jersey except with respect those agency.3 reaching decision, noted conceded materials might incriminating. stated that, therefore, "the relevant inquiry . has communicative which warrant protection." 541 F.Supp. (1981) (emphasis original). found "admit exist, they authentic." Ibid. While ruling out possibility could devise way ensure incriminate respondent, made such showing. 4 Third Circuit affirmed. It addressed ever After noting individual may behalf corporation, partnership, other collective entity4 Bellis 417 85, 94 2179, 40 678 (1974), reasoned proprietorship acts personal representative capacity. As result, foreclosed reasoning Bellis. 327, 331 (1982). 5 next considered 39 (1976), ordinarily because created voluntarily compulsion. nevertheless either analyses. First, notwithstanding holdings Fisher, different owner's Noting cases private papers, although voluntarily, protected Amendment,5 accorded same protection papers.6 Second, own." F.2d, 335. existence authenticity. Accordingly, documents. 6 contended should enforce offer any way. 6003 been made. light failure, did err rejecting 7 We certiorari resolve apparent conflict underlying Court's Fisher. now reverse remand proceedings. III 8 expressly declined reach individual's tax possession.7 rationale our is, however, persuasive here. we U.S., S.Ct., 1573. present.8 A demands "does oral testimony; nor taxpayer sought." Id., 409, 1580. Applying stated: 9 "[T]he violated alone papers face taxpayer, being incriminated own communications. Schmerber California [384 757, 86 1826, 16 908 (1966) ], supra; States Wade [388 218, 87 1926, 1149 (1967) Gilbert 263, 1951, 1178 supra. accountant's workpapers taxpayer's. They contain declarations him. Furthermore, far record demonstrates, these wholly said evidence, taxpayers anyone else. avoid compliance merely item evidence contains incriminating writing, someone else." 409-410, 1580-81. 10 equal contend involuntarily9 therefore hold privileged.10 B 11 Although document be. 410, 1581. government compels holder perform effect. Fisher: "Compliance tacitly concedes control taxpayer. indicate taxpayer's belief described subpoena. Curcio 354 118, 125 [77 1145, 1150, 1225] (1957). elements clearly present, but more difficult issues tacit averments both 'testimonial' 'incriminating' purposes applying These questions perhaps do lend themselves categorical answers; resolution instead depend facts circumstances particular classes thereof." 12 explored effect determined minimal value operate Unlike explicit self-incrimination.11 agreed.12 essentially rests factual issues. See Nixon, 418 683, 702, 3090, 3104, 41 1039 (1974). Therefore, overturn unless support record. Traditionally, reluctant disturb findings below concurred. Rogers Lodge, 458 613, 623 102 3272, 3278-79, 73 1012 decline regard, where, here, Appeals.13 IV 13 Government, concedes, listed Sections Title provide granting potentially evidence.14 upheld constitutionality Kastigar 406 441, 92 1653, 32 212 (1972). 14 state times before But counsel never immunity.15 urged adopt immunity. Under doctrine, impose requirement incriminatory claiming even though procedures followed. 15 requires.16 Pillsbury Co. Conboy, --- ----, 103 608, 74 430 (1983), passing statute, "Congress gave officials Department exclusive authority immunities." 612-613. foresaw playing minor role immunizing process: ." n. 11, 11. decision seek necessarily involves balancing interest obtaining information risk frustrate attempts prosecute subject investigation. Mandujano, 564, 575, 1768, 1776. (1976) (plurality op.). Congress left exclusively Department. If, remand, appropriate official concludes desirable records, procedure requesting available.17 V conclude erred judgment part,18 remanded proceedings accordance decision. 17 so ordered. Affirmed O'CONNOR, concurring. 19 I concur result Powell's write separately, just implicit analysis opinion: provides absolutely kind. notion privacy originated Boyd 116 616, 630, 524, 532, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886), sounded death-knell Boyd. "Several Boyd's express [had] stood test time[,]" id., 407, 1579, concept "had long rule searching Today's puts long-overdue end fruitless search. 20 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring part dissenting part. 21 affirmance Appeals' dissent, reversing Appeals. basis reversal majority's disagreement discussion withhold disclosure. Inasmuch rest upon disposition issue, errs decide it. STEVENS rightly insists, "[t]his reviews judgments, opinions." Post, 619 (citing Black Cutter Laboratories, 351 292, 297, 76 824, 827, 100 1188 (1955). 22 Contrary O'CONNOR contends, ante, 618, having reconsidered "private kind." presented nothing remotely close eagerly poses answers. above, obviated rulings relating stake here records1 implicate lesser degree concern interests than, example, diaries.2 23 Were true stands proposition kind," ibid., assuredly dissent. continue believe "there ought request." 431-432, 1590-91, (Justice concurring). 24 STEVENS, 25 "This (1956).1 When correctly apply law, dispose them, think poor appellate practice reverse. 26 tendering immunity, can proprietor Except agencies, required. turned, suggestion significance them. explained: 27 reveal communications, protection. (1976). yielding command subpoena, Mr. [Doe] mere 'a communication admission exist authentic.' Re Jury Empanelled (Colucci), 597 851, 862 Cir.1979); Andresen Maryland, 427 463, 475, 2737, 2746, 49 627 ("the protect complying very constitute compulsory authentication information."). addition, produced 28 With few exceptions, enforcement authentic. if decree, violate [Doe's] rights." re March 19, (D.N.J.1981).2 agreed 30 "To sure, requested like prepared, 'cannot evidence' themselves. supra, 409-10 [96 1580-81]. Supreme went great lengths demonstrate situations, amount declaration. id. 410-13 1580-82]; see 430-34 1590-92] (MARSHALL, J., judgment). And situation, believe, present dispute bar." 31 "The explanation how sort authenticated appellee's participation. observed connection, 33 'the give assurances 34 admissions [the appellee] subsequent trial, indicted. argues authenticity proved appellee's] communication, satisfy representation implemented proceedings.' 35 "Appendix 98 (footnote omitted). circumstances, unable say, responding 'would appear represent substantial threat self-incrimination.' 413 1582]. 36 "Accordingly, hold, outcome neither compatible fifth amendment consonant Fisher." 334, 335-336 Cir.1982). 37 opportunity obtain providing so. wrote: 38 "Finally, compelling appellee functional equivalent production.' arrangement, presumably turn obligated "We unpersuaded proposition. stresses, number occasions, suggested there means immunized, immunization § advanced. Given identify particularity proposal envisioned, say approach, especially court's trial.' Appendix 98; Garcia, 544 681, 685 Cir.1976)." 337. entirely consistent case. agrees directed quashed—which review today contains. To extent purports Appeals, respectfully categories were: 1) general ledgers; 2) journals; 3) cash disbursement 4) petty books vouchers; 5) purchase 6) 7) paid bills; 8) invoices; 9) receipts journal; 10) billings; 11) statements; 12) check stubs; 13) payroll records; 14) contracts copies including retainer agreements; 15) financial 16) deposit tickets; 17) retained partnership income returns; 18) 19) payable ledger; 20) receivable 21) company statement calls telegrams, toll slips; 22) escrow, trust, fiduciary maintained clients; 23) safe box 24) purchases sales stocks bonds; 25) names home addresses partners, associates, employees; 26) W-2 forms each partner, associate, employee; 27) workpapers; 28) returns. company's stock transfer book, corporate minutes, charter, correspondence memoranda, bids, bid bonds, contracts. "corporate" minutes charter puzzling named unincorporated mentioned returns examples falling within category. challenged aspect opinion. understand concerns agency. note implications drawn broadest possible terms. breadth attack grounds us. defined "collective entity" "an organization recognized independent entity apart members." 92, 2185. Proceedings (Johanson), 632 1033 (CA3 1980); ICC Gould, 629 847 1980), cert. denied, 449 1077, 101 856, 66 800 (1981). apparently reads Appeals's affirming hypothesis, quotes extensively portion issue. quoted passage, begins after discussed read deprive proprietorship's protection, principally (1980), (1981)—had refused interpretation. "Gould, then, well jury." 334 alternative, well. parties share interpretation Brief Petitioner, 5; Respondent, 3-4. "Whether shield involved here; 'private papers,' 414, 1582. some respects "personal" taxpayers' lawyers. related personal, party. contrast, pertained businesses. Respondent's principal argument creating "zone production." derives language (1886). substantially "Within limits imposed Amendment, observe, truly serves interests; ground, included, applied prevent otherwise acquisition which, view, sort." 399, 1575. petitioner relied argument, continued validity broad contained earlier [has] discredited later 472, 2744. Nobles, 422 225, 233, 95 2160, 2167, 45 141 (1975). compilation themselves." 334. unduly restrictive reading Accord Proceedings, 626 1051, 1055 (CA1 1980) ("The line culminating stripped content protection"). directly point, holding. Andresen, investigators bi-county fraud unit obtained warrants search petitioner's office. search, seized practitioner real estate law. suppression Fourth grounds. based "dicta imply, state, seizure person's self-incrimination." 471, dismissed committed writing" therein. 473, 2745. principle context. If party compiled document, "With [respondent] [respondent's] rights. witness proceedings." F.Supp., "In matter sub judice, find knows, certainty, myriad control. most plausible inference broad-sweeping prove exist—or somehow connected entities investigation—is attempting compensate lack knowledge requiring become, effect, primary informant himself." aspects, incrimination trivial implicated. finds Marchetti 390 39, 88 697, 889 (1968). Marchetti, who wishes must "confronted 'real,' trifling imaginary, hazards incrimination." 53, 705; Apfelbaum, 445 115, 128, 948, 956, 63 250 (1980). On clear "substantial real" "trifling imaginary." concede actually existed possession. argued pointed source, authenticate admissible trial. Fed.R.Evid. 901. By documents, relieve need authentication. allegations sufficient establish valid rebutting "foregone conclusion." 411, case, failed Section provides: "Whenever refuses, self-incrimination, testify proceeding ancillary to— (1) (2) agency (3) House Congress, joint committee Houses, subcommittee House, presiding communicates order issued refuse comply self-incrimination; testimony (or indirectly derived information) used criminal prosecution perjury, giving false statement, failing order." "(a) called judicial shall subsection (b) section, attorney district, refuses become effective provided section may, approval Attorney General, Deputy designated Assistant (a) when judgment— necessary interest; likely Despite repeated questioning promising Of course, generally suppress compelled, results violation witness's 576, 1776, (1976); Blue, 384 251, 255, 1416, 1419, 510 (1966). difference situation theory latter judicially enforceable testify. former exclusion witness' deter future violations witnesses' cover production. contention unfounded. requirements Murphy Waterfront Commission, 378 52, 107, 84 1594, 1618, (1964) (WHITE, concurring); Co., 8, 612, 8; Calandra, 414 338 346, 613 619, 561 extends accompany states whole below. infra, 1248. 6, today. STEVENS's suggestion, argue insofar majority notes, "each businesses." Ante, 610, 7. Couch 409 322, 350, 93 611, 626, 548 (1972) dissenting) ("Diaries letters author's thoughts lie heart sense privacy. bar letter conspirator directing recipient take steps conspiracy. Business cases.") More particularly, entered ante 609, isolated commenting Similarly, Court, Judge Sarokin "If you my satisfaction hesitancy saying, yes, direct turn-over, condition turn-over utilized target." Joint App. 35.

Category: 0