Andresen v. Maryland

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Criminal Procedure

427 U.S. 463 (1976)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentSearch and SeizureSelf-Incriminationbusiness recordscompulsionsearch warrant particularity

Facts

Maryland investigators developed probable cause to believe petitioner, a sole-practitioner real estate attorney, had defrauded a purchaser in a transaction involving Lot 13T in the Potomac Woods subdivision by misrepresenting that the property was free of liens. They obtained warrants to search petitioner's law office and the office of his corporation for specified documents pertaining to the sale and conveyance of Lot 13T, and the searches resulted in seizure of a small percentage of files. After a suppression hearing, many items were returned or suppressed, but several documents from petitioner's office and the corporation's files were admitted at trial, including materials relating to Lot 13T and some documents relevant to intent. Petitioner argued that seizure and use of these papers violated the Fifth Amendment and that the warrants and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment bar the government from introducing into evidence a person's business records that were seized from his offices pursuant to search warrants? Did the warrants here violate the Fourth Amendment as impermissibly general warrants, and were certain seized documents improperly taken as mere evidence unrelated to the charged transaction?

Rule

The Fifth Amendment is violated only when a person is compelled to be a witness against himself; thus, seizure of voluntarily created business records by law enforcement officers and their later introduction into evidence do not offend the privilege when the accused is not required to aid in discovery, production, or authentication. Under the Fourth Amendment, warrant language must be read in context, and a warrant is sufficiently particular when its broad concluding phrase is limited by the preceding specific description to evidence of the particular crime and transaction identified. Evidence concerning related transactions may be seized if investigators reasonably could believe it would aid in proving an element of the specified offense, such as intent, consistent with Warden v. Hayden.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Investigators in Columbus, Ohio obtained a valid warrant to search accountant Leo Martin's office for records relating to a specified embezzlement scheme. During the search, officers seized ledger pages and handwritten notes Leo had previously created, and at trial the prosecution authenticated them through a forensic document examiner rather than Leo.

If Leo objects that admitting the seized papers violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The Fifth Amendment bars compelled self-incrimination, not the government's independent acquisition of incriminating writings. When officers lawfully seize voluntarily created business records and the accused is not required to aid in their discovery, production, or authentication, their later introduction into evidence does not violate the privilege.