Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

subpoenaappealself-incrimination
subpoenaappeal

Related Cases

In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 57 USLW 2212
View Case »
Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504
View Case »
Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57, 60 USLW 4411
View Case »
Laurins v. U.S., 492 U.S. 906, 109 S.Ct. 3215, 106 L.Ed.2d 565
View Case »
Khani v. Ford Motor Co., 215 Cal.App.4th 916, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4204, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5399
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 795, 84 A.L.R.6th 677

Facts

John Doe was served with a subpoena duces tecum requiring him to produce unencrypted contents from his laptop and external hard drives in a child pornography investigation. After being granted act-of-production immunity, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to decrypt the hard drives. The district court held him in contempt for this refusal, leading to the appeal.

John Doe was served with a subpoena duces tecum requiring him to produce unencrypted contents from his laptop and external hard drives in a child pornography investigation.

Issue

Did the district court err in holding Doe in contempt for refusing to decrypt the hard drives, given the protections of the Fifth Amendment?

Did the district court err in holding Doe in contempt for refusing to decrypt the hard drives, given the protections of the Fifth Amendment?

Rule

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against themselves, and an act of production can be considered testimonial if it conveys a statement of fact.

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against themselves, and an act of production can be considered testimonial if it conveys a statement of fact.

Analysis

The appellate court determined that Doe's act of decrypting and producing the hard drives' contents was testimonial because it would require him to use the contents of his mind to communicate facts about the existence and control of potentially incriminating files. The court also found that the government did not meet the burden of showing that the existence of the files was a foregone conclusion, thus triggering Fifth Amendment protections.

The appellate court determined that Doe's act of decrypting and producing the hard drives' contents was testimonial because it would require him to use the contents of his mind to communicate facts about the existence and control of potentially incriminating files.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the district court's contempt ruling, concluding that Doe's refusal to decrypt the hard drives was protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The appellate court reversed the district court's contempt ruling, concluding that Doe's refusal to decrypt the hard drives was protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Who won?

John Doe prevailed in the appeal because the court recognized that his act of decrypting the hard drives was protected by the Fifth Amendment, and the immunity granted was insufficient.

John Doe prevailed in the appeal because the court recognized that his act of decrypting the hard drives was protected by the Fifth Amendment, and the immunity granted was insufficient.

You must be