The introduction of petitioner's business records into evidence was not a violation of his U.S. Constitutional Amendment V, self-incrimination privilege. Petitioner, as the closing attorney, was convicted of false pretenses for defrauding a purchaser of property. Investigators obtained a search warrant to search petitioner's offices for evidence of the crime.
Petitioner argued that the admission of his business records, which contained statements made by petitioner, compelled petitioner to testify against himself in violation of U.S. Constitutional Amendment V.
- The court disagreed, holding that petitioner was not asked to say or to do anything.
- Thus, the introduction into evidence of petitioner's business records seized during an otherwise lawful search did not offend or undermine any of the policies undergirding the privilege.
- The court also rejected petitioner's argument that the searches were unreasonable because they were based on general warrants.
- The warrants referred only to the crime of false pretenses and were sufficiently specific.
The court affirmed the judgment.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure