Can the government use a person's seized business records as evidence against them without violating their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches?

Andresen, an attorney specializing in real estate settlements, was investigated for fraudulent activities related to the sale of Lot 13T in the Potomac Woods subdivision. He allegedly defrauded Standard-Young Associates, the purchaser, by misrepresenting that the property was free of liens when he knew of two outstanding liens. Andresen also allegedly defrauded a title insurance company by issuing a policy guaranteeing clear title.

Law enforcement obtained search warrants for Andresen's law office and the office of Mount Vernon Development Corporation, where Andresen was the sole shareholder. The searches resulted in the seizure of numerous documents. Some of these seized documents were subsequently used as evidence against Andresen at trial. Andresen was ultimately convicted of false pretenses and fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary.

Andresen was charged with false pretenses and fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to suppress the seized documents. The trial court conducted a suppression hearing, resulting in the suppression of some items while allowing others. Andresen was subsequently convicted at trial. He then appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which upheld the convictions related to Lot 13T and rejected Andresen's Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims. Following this, the case proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari.

(Blackmun, J.)

Yes. The government can use a person's seized business records as evidence against them without violating their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination, not the mere disclosure of private information. When business records are seized pursuant to a valid search warrant, the individual is not being compelled to produce or authenticate the evidence. This crucial distinction separates seizures from situations involving subpoenas, where an individual may be actively compelled to provide information. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is satisfied when warrants are sufficiently specific and limited in scope. A warrant that clearly defines the items to be seized and relates them to a specific crime under investigation does not constitute an impermissible general warrant. The particularity requirement is met when the warrant's language, even if broad, is interpreted within the context of the specific criminal activity being investigated. This interpretation ensures that searches remain focused and do not devolve into exploratory rummaging through a person's belongings. The balance between effective law enforcement and individual privacy rights is maintained when warrants are properly executed within these constitutional boundaries. Consequently, evidence obtained through such lawful seizures is admissible in court proceedings without infringing upon the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights or violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

Dissent (Brennan, J.) The seizure of business records violated the Fifth Amendment's protection of privacy. There is no meaningful distinction between compelled production by subpoena and seizure by warrant. The warrants were impermissibly general, failing to meet Fourth Amendment requirements. This decision undermines crucial constitutional protections against government overreach in obtaining private business records.

Dissent (Marshall, J.) The business records should have been suppressed because they were seized pursuant to a general warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment. The majority's decision weakens the specificity requirement for search warrants, potentially allowing for overly broad searches in future cases. This erosion of Fourth Amendment protections sets a dangerous precedent for privacy rights in business contexts.