JOSE A. GONZALEZ, ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A custodian of corporate records cannot claim a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse production of subpoenaed corporate records, regardless of how small the corporation or whether the custodian is the sole owner.
[1] A custodian of corporate records, even if the sole owner and officer of a one-person corporation, may not assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is well settled that no privilege can be claimed by the custodian of corporate records, regardless of how small the corporation may be”
From Bellis v. U.S., 417 U.S. 85, 100 (1974)
Appellant Gonzalez was served with a subpoena for corporate records. The appellant, apparently the custodian and possibly sole owner of the corporatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Privilege Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
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)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…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…
Authorities Cited
- Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1974)
- United States v. DOE, 465 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1984)
- Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 510 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1987)
- Gonzalez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)