Court Opinion

ID: 9397052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 15:04:09.123793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.576075
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed May 24, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-2369
                      Lower Tribunal No. F21-13390
                          ________________

                    Jose A. Gonzalez, etc., et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                          The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diana
Vizcaino, Judge.

     Lagos & Priovolos PLLC, and Christos Lagos, for appellants.

    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Bellis v. U.S., 417 U.S. 85, 100 (1974) (“It is well settled

that no privilege can be claimed by the custodian of corporate records,

regardless of how small the corporation may be”); State v. Wellington

Precious Metals, Inc., 510 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1987). See also Braswell v. U.S.,

487 U.S. 99 (1988) (holding corporations are not protected by the Fifth

Amendment and rejecting Braswell’s claim that his corporation was so small

that the act of producing the documents had testimonial significance); U.S.

v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984); U.S. v. Stein, Case No. 21-20321-CR-

ALTONAGA/TORRES, 2021 WL 3129628 at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2021)

(confirming that a records custodian, the sole employee and officer of two

LLCs, must comply with a subpoena for corporate records even if such

records are incriminating, and noting “Defendant could have chosen to form

his companies as an unincorporated sole proprietorship and enjoyed the

benefits of the privilege against self-incrimination.    But that is not what

Defendant chose to do. He opted instead for the corporate form and to gain

the benefits that came with that establishment. Defendant ‘cannot now

disregard the corporate form to shield his business records from production’

because, even as the sole principal of a corporation, every appellate court

that has considered the question leftover in Braswell has concluded that it

applies to one-person corporations” (internal citations omitted)).

                                       2