Opinion ID: 3028638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Act of Production Doctrine

Text: In refusing to turn over the requested documents, Teeple relies on the act of production doctrine. This doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Fisher v. United States, which noted the act of producing evidence may have communicative aspects that can violate the Fifth Amendment. 425 U.S. 391, 410-13 (1976). Subsequently, the Court maintained that, even when the contents of documents or records are unprotected by the Fifth Amendment, see United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 & n.10 (1984), the Fifth Amendment's protections may nevertheless be implicated by the very act of producing the documents or records. Id. at 612. This is so, the Court reasoned, because the act of complying with the government's request may have testimonial aspects and an incriminating effect. Id. As the Court explained, [c]ompliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer. It also would indicate the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 (citation omitted). However, not every act that communicates statements of fact rises to the level of a protected communication under the Fifth Amendment. For example, if the existence, possession, and authenticity of the documents are a foregone conclusion and the taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by his act of producing the documents, the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated because nothing he has said or done is deemed to be sufficiently testimonial for purposes of the privilege. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411. Therefore, where the government already possesses the knowledge that would otherwise be communicated, [t]he question is not of testimony but of surrender. Id. -4-