## Facts

- A federal grand jury investigated alleged corruption in the awarding of county and municipal contracts.
- “John Doe,” owner of several sole proprietorships, received subpoenas demanding production of business records for those businesses.
- Doe moved to quash, arguing that compliance would be self-incriminating because producing the records would communicate their existence, possession, and authenticity.
- The district court largely quashed the subpoenas, except for records required by law to be kept or disclosed to a public agency.
- The Third Circuit affirmed and rejected compelling production absent a formal statutory request for use immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Amendment questions raised by the subpoenas.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment protects the contents of voluntarily prepared business records of a sole proprietorship from compelled production.
2. Whether the act of producing subpoenaed business records can be “testimonial” and incriminating, thus protected by the Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether courts may compel production by recognizing “constructive” use immunity, or whether compulsion requires statutory use immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The Court held that the contents of voluntarily prepared business records are not privileged by the Fifth Amendment.
- The Court held that the act of producing subpoenaed records may be testimonial and incriminating, and thus can fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege.
- The Court held that production cannot be compelled over a valid act-of-production privilege claim without a statutory grant of use immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003.
- The Court rejected the government’s request for judicially created “constructive” use immunity.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimonial self-incrimination; it does not protect the contents of documents voluntarily created without compulsion.
- Producing documents in response to a subpoena may itself be testimonial when it implicitly admits the documents’ existence, possession or control, and authenticity.
- When the act of production is privileged, the government may compel production only through the statutory immunity process; courts may not confer prospective immunity outside 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003.

## Conclusion

The Court drew a firm line between unprivileged document contents and a potentially privileged act of production, and it required the government to use the statutory use-immunity mechanism—rather than judicially fashioned immunity—before compelling production that would itself be testimonial.


United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984)