Court Opinion

ID: 9646811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:11:55.921624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:42.075787
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result for the reasons stated below.
Coekrum & Fink contracted with relator to auction relator’s property and as part of that contract Coekrum & Fink agreed to “maintain all records pertaining to the conduct of the auction, the sale of goods and collection of monies and shall make available for Jay Bee’s examination and inspection all such books, records and statements pertaining to said public auction.”
In City of Kansas City v. Carter, 610 S.W.2d 104 (Mo.App.1980), the court of appeals said:
The pro se defendant invokes only the Fifth Amendment to protect him from that incrimination of the business records, but he does not draw himself within even the principle. The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615, 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182, 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. The papers and effects which the privilege protects must be the private property oí the person who claims the privilege, or who, at least, possesses in a purely personal capacity. Bellis v. United States, supra, l.c. 90[5], 94 S.Ct. at 2184.
Id. at 107.
The same is true of the records sought in this case. These records were not the sole property of Coekrum & Fink but they (Coekrum & Fink) were the custodians of *65the auction records — business records — for the benefit of relator. The fifth amendment does not afford Cockrum & Fink the right to refuse production of that kind of record for the reasons stated in City of Kansas City v. Carter, supra.
The reason I file this opinion is because I do not agree that Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976), contains the suggestion attributed to it in the principal opinion, nor am I satisfied that these records are the records of a corporation. In short, I think the principal opinion unnecessarily paints with too broad a brush and permits implications in this important area of constitutional rights that are not necessary to the decision and perhaps incorrect.
For the reasons stated I concur in result.