ANDRESEN V. MARYLAND- A PERSON'S BUSINESS RECORDS AS EVIDENCE VIOLATE THE 5TH AMENDMENT

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:10):
Adam Young nineteen fifty five. Okay, make three word camp
and grant week for a co I believe my camera.
I'm gonna be looking at Andresson versus Maryland today. It's
the court case of nineteen seventy six, the introduction to evidence.
This is the rule of law of a person's business
records that have been seized from the person's office does

(00:31):
not violate the person's Fifth Amendment right to be free
from compelled self incrimination. Number two in the rule of law,
the addition of a catch all phrase to a list
of items to be searched for and sees and a
warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment specificity requirement so
long as it is limited by the language of the warrant.
Two items relating to a specific crime Look at the Facts.

(00:53):
In nineteen seventy two are real estate attorneymed Peter Anderson,
the defendant, came under investigation for fraud. The investigation revealed
that Anderson had defrauded the purchaser of Lot thirteen TA
by claiming the property was free of encumbrances and did
not require title insurance, even though Anderson knew there were
two existing leans. The purchaser had to stop construction when
the leading holders threatened foreclosure. Anderson then defrauded the title

(01:17):
insurance company he worked for. It issued insurance posit to
the purchaser warrant in clear title on the land. The
investigators were able to show probable cause and a judge
with the six Judicial Circuit issue warrants to search Anderson's
law and corporate offices for document concerning the sale of
Lot thirteen T. On October thirty first, nineteen seventy two,
the offices were searched and files were seized. Anderson was

(01:39):
criminally charged with false pretenses and fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary.
At trial, Anderson moved to suppress the seased documents. He
argued that the phrase, together with other fruits, instrumentalities and
in evidence of crime at this time unknown at the
end of the document's list, and the warrants rendered them
general warrants, which are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, that

(02:00):
admitting the documents into evidence forced him to be a
witness against him self and violation of the Fifth. The
motion was denied. Anderson was found guilty by a jury
in sentenced to eight two year prison SERMs. The Court
of Special Appeals in Maryland rejected Anderson's fourth and Fifth
Amendment claims. The United States Supreme Court granted ser diiori issue.

(02:22):
Does the introduction into evidence of a person's business records
that have been seized from the person's office violate the
Fifth Amendment right to be free from compelled self incrimination?
Does the addition of catch all phrase to a list
of items to be searched for and seized render any
otherwise valid warrant a general warrant? According to Judge Blackman, No,

(02:46):
that's the holding. The reasoning. The Fifth Amendment protects a
person from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
This right to be free from compulsory self incrimination applies
both to testimony and to personal records. However, in order
for there to be compulsion and violation of the Fifth
the person must actually be asked to say or do

(03:07):
something with respect to the incriminatory information. And as an example,
the Fifth Amendment may protect someone from having to produce
incriminating documents because the act of producing would be self incriminatory.
But if the person's same documents are seized by officers
during a valid search, the omission of those documents and
evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the

(03:28):
person because they didn't produce them themselves. Here addresson have
voluntarily created the business records at issue, and another reasoning
the Fourth Amendment requires that search warrant specifically list and
describes the items to be seized and limits seizures to
those items. The answer was no again Accordingly, general warrants
allowing police to rifle through the holding was no. Again,

(03:50):
through an individual's property at their discretion, looking for any
type of evidence of any crime art forbidden. However, the
addition of a catch all phrase to a list of
items to be searched for and in search in season
a search warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendments specificity
requirement so long as it is limited by the language
of the warrant to items related to the crime. The
specific crime in this case, Anderson has searched of the

(04:13):
phrase together with other fruits, instrumentalities, and evidence of crime
at this time unknown, turns the otherwise lawful search into general. However,
this argument requires reading the phrase in isolation and that
of context. The catch all phrase comes at the end
of a list of items all limited by the preceding
part of the sentence. The only descent was Judge Brennan

(04:34):
the sweeping catch all contained and the warrants violated the
Fourth Amendments. The Court's construction restricting the authorization to items
related to the false pretenses charge of Lot thirteen T
was not available to officials conducting the search, and the
large number of items suppressed that the trial is evidence
that this was a general warrant and violation of the Fourth. Unfortunately,
they do not agree with the descent, So the holding

(04:56):
and reasoning was, No, that does not violate the Fifth
or the Fourth Amendment in this case with a catchall phrase,
and it does that violate the self incrimination. That's it
for now, Thanks for listening. M