Andresen v. Maryland

Background

In early 1972 a Bi-County Fraud Unit investigated real estate settlement transactions in the Washington area. The unit searched the law office of an attorney who specialized in real estate settlements and the offices of a small development corporation he ran. Officers seized a small percentage of files from each office. The attorney was charged with false pretenses and fraudulent misappropriation. Some seized documents were returned or suppressed, but several seized files were admitted at trial and helped convict him on multiple counts.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two plain questions: whether business records seized in an office search force a person to be a witness against himself, and whether the warrants were too broad. The majority said the Fifth Amendment protects against being compelled to testify, but it does not bar admission of records that the person voluntarily wrote and that were seized by police. The Court relied on earlier decisions allowing similar evidence and held that the seized papers were authenticated without forcing the attorney to speak. On the Fourth Amendment point, the Court read the warrants as limited to documents about Lot 13T and related evidence, and found that records about a nearby lot were reasonably seized to show intent.

Real world impact

The ruling lets prosecutors introduce business files taken in lawful office searches as trial evidence. It makes it harder for defendants to argue that seized office records are always protected by the Fifth Amendment. The decision affirms judges’ ability to issue detailed warrants tied to specific investigations.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing the warrants were too general and that seizing private business records is equivalent to compelling production and should be barred by the Fifth Amendment.