Andresen v. Maryland | |
---|---|
Argued February 25, 1976 Decided June 29, 1976 | |
Full case name | Peter C. Andresen, Petitioner v. State of Maryland |
Citations | 427
U.S.
463 (
more) 96 S. Ct. 2737; 49
L. Ed. 2d 627 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Holding | |
The searches and seizures were not "unreasonable" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens |
Dissent | Brennan |
Dissent | Marshall |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV |
Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that search of petitioner's offices for business records, their seizure, and subsequent introduction into evidence did not offend the Fifth Amendment's proscription that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Although the records seized contained statements that petitioner voluntarily had committed to writing, he was never required to say anything.
Andresen v. Maryland | |
---|---|
Argued February 25, 1976 Decided June 29, 1976 | |
Full case name | Peter C. Andresen, Petitioner v. State of Maryland |
Citations | 427
U.S.
463 (
more) 96 S. Ct. 2737; 49
L. Ed. 2d 627 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Holding | |
The searches and seizures were not "unreasonable" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens |
Dissent | Brennan |
Dissent | Marshall |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV |
Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that search of petitioner's offices for business records, their seizure, and subsequent introduction into evidence did not offend the Fifth Amendment's proscription that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Although the records seized contained statements that petitioner voluntarily had committed to writing, he was never required to say anything.