## Facts

- The Indiana Department of Revenue suspected William Smith and his wife had failed to file Indiana income tax returns for several years.
- The Department subpoenaed Smith and his wife to produce documents relating to their state income tax liability for multiple years.
- Indiana law required taxpayers to keep records relevant to determining income tax liability and to make those records available to the Department upon demand.
- Smith refused to comply with the subpoena, asserting that production would violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Indiana prosecuted Smith for a misdemeanor offense based on failing to permit examination of records the statute required him to keep.
- Smith was convicted in Indiana state court, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal on the ground that the “required records” doctrine permitted compulsion.
- Smith sought federal habeas relief; the district court dismissed the petition, and Smith appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether compelling production of statutorily required state tax records, and punishing refusal to permit their examination, violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
2. Whether the “required records” doctrine permits compelled production even when the act of production could have testimonial aspects.
3. Whether any alleged Fifth Amendment error entitled Smith to federal habeas relief from his state conviction.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Smith’s habeas petition.
- The court held that compelled production of existing documents generally does not implicate the Fifth Amendment unless the act of production is testimonial.
- The court held that the “required records” doctrine remains valid and applied to Smith’s tax records required by Indiana law.
- Because the subpoena sought required records within a regulatory scheme, Indiana could compel their production and punish noncompliance without violating the Fifth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment generally does not protect the contents of voluntarily created, preexisting documents; protection may arise only if compelled production forces a testimonial act (e.g., admitting existence, possession, or authenticity).
- The “required records” doctrine allows government to compel production of records that lawfully must be kept and made available as part of a regulatory regime, even if production would otherwise be considered testimonial.
- Tax recordkeeping and inspection obligations imposed by statute can fall within the required-records doctrine, permitting enforcement through criminal penalties for refusal.
- On federal habeas review, relief is unavailable absent a constitutional violation; enforcing a required-records demand consistent with Supreme Court precedent does not establish a Fifth Amendment breach.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Smith’s state conviction and denied habeas relief, concluding that Indiana could compel and inspect statutorily required tax records under the required-records doctrine without violating the Fifth Amendment, and could criminally punish refusal to permit examination.


Smith v. Richert, 35 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 1994)