Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis DEEMS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-03-17
Citations: 334 So. 2d 829
Docket Number: No. 75-437
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis DEEMS, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 334
Pages: 829–833

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis DEEMS, Appellee.
No. 75-437.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 17, 1976.
Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Harold Ungerleider, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.
Joel Hirschhorn and Yale T. Freeman, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
NATHAN, Judge.
This is an appeal by the State of Florida from an order of the trial court granting defendant Deems' motion to dismiss the information charging him with conspiracy to commit a felony, grand larceny. The order under appeal also granted defendant's motion to suppress certain corporate records produced by defendant in the State Attorney's office in compliance with a subpoena duces tecum.
The basis of the trial court's ruling in dismissing the information was that the subpoena duces tecum was addressed to and served personally on Deems, not in any corporate capacity, but as an individual and having so complied with the subpoena, he was immunized from prosecution under § 914.04, Fla.Stat., which provides:
"No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tec-um, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney, upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to convict him of a crime or to subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding." al privilege against self incrimination where such individual is subpoenaed or compelled to produced his own personal records. State ex rel. Byer v. Willard, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 179. However, a requirement for production of records of the corporation of which Deems was president would not violate Deems' privilege against self incrimination and would not prevent prosecution under the statute. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 281 So.2d 551; 79 C. J.S. Searches and Seizures § 37.
Section 914.04, Fla.Stat., is designed to assure an individual's constitution-
The subpoena duces tecum served on Deems in part provided:
"IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY
CASE NO_
STATE OF FLORIDA, ss. vs. INVESTIGATION
(Defendants)
WITNESS SUBPOENA "Criminal"
TO: DENNIS DEEM, [sic] President Mini-Diner Inc.
20785 Northwest Miami Court Miami, Florida or c/o Mt. Sinai Hospital 4300 Alton Road Miami Beach, Florida (Witnesses)
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
TO ALL AND SINGULAR THE SHERIFFS OF TPIE STATE OF FLORIDA:
GREETINGS
We command you to summon the above witness to be and appear before the State Attorney, of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, on the Sixth Floor, Metropolitan Dade County Justice Building, 1351 N. W. 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida, on Friday, May 31st, 1974, at 2:30 P.M., to testify and the truth to speak in behalf of the STATE in a certain matter before said State Attorney pending and undetermined.
ATTACHED SHEET:
PLEASE BRING THE FOLLOWING:
ALL BOOKS and RECORDS of the MINI-DINER, INC. from March 1, 1972, through February 28, 1973, including ALL LEDGERS, CHECK BOOKS, CAN-CELLED CHECKS, BANK STATEMENTS, INVOICES, BILLS, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS AND AUDITS.
and
any REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, BILLS, or INVOICES relating to the purchase, delivery or obtaining of food products for the MINI-DINER to of from MT. SINAI HOSPITAL."
From a reading of the subpoena duces tecum it is not clear whether it is directed to Deems individually or as the custodian of the records of the corporation of which he was president. The subpoena does not reflect the nature of the matter pending before the trial court for which the records are required and further it required him to bring all books and records of Mini-Diner, Inc., and
"any REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, BILLS, or INVOICES relating to the purchase, delivery or obtaining of food products for the MINI-DINER to or from MT. SINAI HOSPITAL."
The trial court found that Deems did bring the records to the office of the State Attorney without waiving immunity. The court further found that if the State intended to obtain only corporate documents, as it claims, by subpoena for use in a trial against the corporation and Deems, then the State should have made that intention clear by unambiguous language of the subpoena duces tecum. We agree and affirm.
Affirmed.