RICHARD FIELDS
v.
BRANDY COLETTA
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 husband sought to quash a discovery order requiring production of business and financial records, claiming Fifth Amendment self-incrimination protection. The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the Fifth Amendment does not protect against production of documents merely because they might incriminate, and that producing pre-existing records shared with third parties is not testimonial.
The Fifth Amendment does not protect against production of documents merely because they might incriminate the person, as the privilege protects only against compelled testimonial communications. Production of pre-existing records that have been generated or already shared with third parties is not testimonial in nature and therefore not protected by the Fifth Amendment.
[1] The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects a person only against being incriminated by their own compelled testimonial communications, not merely b…
[2] The act of producing business and financial records, such as tax returns and financial statements, is not considered testimonial in nature for Fifth Amendment purposes wh…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the Fifth Amendment would not be violated by the fact alone that the [tax and business] papers on their face might incriminate the [Petitioner], for the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications”
Establishes the core holding that Fifth Amendment protection is limited to testimonial communications, not documents that might incriminate based on their content alone
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a family law case, the husband was ordered to produce various business and financial records, including federal and state tax returns, financial st…
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 Act Of Production Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGUE, C.J.
In this family law case, a husband petitions to quash an order requiring him to produce various business and financial records including federal and state tax returns, the financial statements of businesses he owned, records concerning the sale of those businesses, bank statements, and credit card statements, among other things. He maintains the records are privileged under his right against self-incrimination afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they might show he is in criminal contempt of various discovery orders. His opposing counsel has threatened criminal contempt, but no motion to hold him in criminal contempt has been filed.
We deny the petition because “the Fifth Amendment would not be violated by the fact alone that the [tax and business] papers on their face might incriminate the [Petitioner], for the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications.” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). And the record does not indicate the act itself of producing the records in this context is testimonial in nature as the records have been generated or already shared with third parties. Cf. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 617 (1984).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1976)
- United States v. DOE, 465 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1984)