Opinion ID: 1997305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Required Records Exception

Text: Also limiting Boyd and explained in Wilson is the required records exception. The Wilson Court noted that the custodian of public records could not assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in those records even if the records would incriminate the public official. Although the Court did not utilize the required records exception to reach its holding, it went on to expand the doctrine to cover not only public officials and public records, but in some instances an individual's business records. The Court explained: The principle [of the required records exception] applies not only to public documents in public offices, but also to records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation, and the enforcement of restrictions validly established. There the privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be maintained. Wilson, 221 U.S. at 380, 31 S.Ct. at 544, 55 L.Ed. at 779. The required records exception was applied to an individual's business records in Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948). William Shapiro, a wholesaler of fruit and produce, was served with a subpoena requiring him to appear before attorneys of the Office of Price Administration and produce the books, records, contracts, and other records of sales he had made for a certain month. Shapiro appeared before the attorneys and turned over the records. He ultimately was convicted of violating the Emergency Price Control Act. Shapiro asserted his conviction was in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court, citing Wilson, noted the public documents exception to the Fifth Amendment applied not only to public documents, but also to private records required to be kept by law regarding transactions that are the subject of governmental regulation. The Emergency Price Control Act required Shapiro to maintain various records regarding the transactions of his business, so the required records exception applied and prevented Shapiro from claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege in the records. The Supreme Court described the appositeness of the required records doctrine in three cases decided on the same day: Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968). In these cases, the Court established a three-part test to determine the applicability of the required records doctrine. The Court stated that in order for the doctrine to apply, the purpose of the inquiry had to be regulatory, the information had to be obtained through records that the party asserting the privilege regularly maintained, and the documents had to have a public aspect. See Grosso, 390 U.S. at 65-66, 88 S.Ct. at 712, 19 L.Ed.2d at 910-11. The Court held in each of the three cases that the elements were not met, primarily because the area of inquiry was not regulatory, but instead directed at inherently suspect activities. See also Curran v. Price, 334 Md. 149, 175, 638 A.2d 93, 106 (1994) (holding that the required records doctrine was not applicable to Maryland's Son of Sam statute because the statute was not regulatory but concerned an inherently criminal area). We applied the required records exception in Andresen v. Bar Association, 269 Md. 313, 305 A.2d 845 (1973). In Andresen, the Bar Association of Montgomery County sought an audit of an attorney's accounts relating to funds received in connection with a real estate closing. A Maryland statute authorized any duly organized bar association to petition the court to order an audit of accounts relating to real estate transactions. [5] Andresen asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination would be violated if he were compelled to submit his accounts to the audit. The lower court ordered the audit and we affirmed. In our opinion, we noted that there were three elements to the required records exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: (1) the records required to be kept are of the same kind customarily kept by a person engaged in such activity; (2) the records have public aspects beyond the mere fact that the Government desires the information and has formalized its demand by statute, rule, or regulation; (3) the records relate to an essentially non-criminal and regulatory area of inquiry. Id. at 324, 305 A.2d at 852. In addition to the Maryland statute giving bar associations authority to conduct an audit of real estate settlement records, Maryland Rule DR 9-102(B)(3) [6] required attorneys to maintain records of all funds and other property of a client over which a lawyer had possession. We acknowledged that unlike the classic prototype of the required records doctrine, id. at 327, 305 A.2d at 853, no pervasive regulatory scheme then existed regarding the reporting or inspection of client records and attorney accounts. Nevertheless, we stated that the facts were close enough in principle to warrant application of the doctrine. [7] Id. at 327, 305 A.2d at 853. Applying the three elements of the required records exception, we stated: First, the records required are, obviously, records customarily kept by lawyers, necessary to a proper accounting of monies held for others. Secondly, the records have public aspects making them at least analogous to public records. They detail the use of monies which the lawyer holds for others in an area properly regulated by the State.... Thirdly, the records are not required of an inherently suspect class in an area permeated with criminal violations.... Id. at 328-29, 305 A.2d at 853. Therefore, the required records exception prevented Andresen from asserting protection by the Fifth Amendment.