Opinion ID: 2818141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Development of the Required Records

Text: Exception to the Fifth Amendment Privilege The Fifth Amendment states that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. An individual may claim this privilege if compelled to produce self-incriminating, “testimonial communication[s].” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). The act of producing documents may trigger the Fifth Amendment privilege. See id. at 410. This is because, by producing documents, one acknowledges that the documents exist, admits that the documents are in one’s custody, and concedes that the documents are those that the 5 subpoena requests. Id. When these “testimonial” aspects of compelled production are self-incriminating, the Fifth Amendment privilege applies. See id. at 410–12. In Shapiro v. United States, the Supreme Court first articulated the required records exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. 335 U.S. 1, 32–33 (1948); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Feb. 2, 2012, 741 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir. 2013) (hereinafter “Doe”). When Shapiro was decided, private papers were entitled to Fifth Amendment protection based on their private status. See 335 U.S. at 33–34. Public papers, however, did not have Fifth Amendment protection. See id. at 5. In Shapiro, the Supreme Court qualified this distinction when it held that the Fifth Amendment privilege did not apply to certain private papers that the law required a person to keep. Id. at 33. The Supreme Court subsequently fleshed out Shapiro’s holding in Grosso v. United States, wherein it explained that the following three prongs must be met in order for records to fall within the “required records” exception: (1) the reporting or recordkeeping scheme must have an essentially regulatory purpose; (2) a person must customarily keep the records that the scheme requires him to keep; and (3) the records must have “public aspects.” 390 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1968). Fisher, which found no Fifth Amendment privilege because the involved taxpayers were not the persons compelled to produce, appeared to shift the focus away from the private/public distinction in determining whether compelled production of records violates the Fifth Amendment privilege.3 See 425 U.S. at 397, 400–01. 3 The degree to which Fisher represents a complete repudiation of the private/public distinction remains unsettled. It has been stated that the general consensus is that Fisher was 6 Despite this somewhat altered view of how the Fifth Amendment relates to the production of documents, courts have continued to rely on the required records exception. See, e.g., Balt. City Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555–56 (1990) (recognizing the principle behind the required records exception abrogated respondent’s act-ofproduction privilege even though her compliance with a court order to produce her child would have aided in her prosecution); Doe, 741 F.3d at 342–43, 346 (applying the required records exception to the respondent’s act-ofproduction privilege where his compliance with a grand jury’s subpoena for account records would have aided in criminal proceedings against him). Courts have offered several reasons for continuing to apply the required records exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege, even though the threshold framework for applying the privilege to documents appears to have changed to a degree. The first is, engaging in an activity for which Congress conditions participation upon recordkeeping effectively waives the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege to prevent compelled disclosure of such records. In re Two Grand Jury Subpoenae Duces Tecum Dated Aug. 21, 1985, 793 F.2d 69, 73 (2d Cir. 1986). The next, and perhaps weaker, is, because “the records must be kept by law, the record-holder ‘admits’ little in the way of control or authentication by producing them.” Id. And the last is, continued application of the required records exception is vital in order to protect the government’s legitimate interest in using the records that it requires individuals to keep. See, e.g., Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 556 (“The Court has on several an attempt to find Fifth Amendment protections applicable to compelled production of documents without relying on the private/public distinction. Doe, 741 F.3d at 343 n.2. 7 occasions recognized that the Fifth Amendment privilege may not be invoked to resist compliance with a regulatory regime constructed to effect the State’s public purposes unrelated to the enforcement of its criminal laws.”); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 707 F.3d at 1274 (citing In re Special Feb. 2011- 1 Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Sept. 12, 2011, 691 F.3d 903, 908–09 (7th Cir. 2012)). These reasons support application of the exception under either the private/public framework or the act-of-production framework. Thus, the required records exception has retained its vitality as an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 554–62.