Legal Opinion
William Smith v. John Richert, Judge, Pulaski Circuit Court Pamela Carter, Attorney General, State of Indiana
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided September 13, 1994No. 93-3711PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POSNER, Chief Judge.
It used to be thought that if a person was required by the government to yield up an incriminating document, this was the equivalent of his being forced, in violation of the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, to testify against himself. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634-36, 6 S.Ct. 524, 534-35, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886). It was in this setting that the “required records” doctrine evolved. A person could not complain about being forced to yield up a document that he was required as a member of a regulated industry to keep and to grant the government free…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Shapiro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- California v. ByersSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Door Systems, Incorporated v. Pro-Line Door Systems, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Stephanie A. Patterson v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Leslie A. GrableCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- M.H. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- United States v. DoeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.