Hale v. Henkel - 201 U.S. 43, 26 S. Ct. 370 (1906)

Rule:

An order for the production of books and papers may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment. While a search ordinarily implies a quest by an officer of the law, and a seizure contemplates a forcible dispossession of the owner, still the substance of the offense is the compulsory production of private papers, whether under a search warrant or a subpoena duces tecum, against which the person, be he individual or corporation, is entitled to protection. 

Facts:

Hale, an agent of a corporation, sought review by certiorari of a judgment of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, which ordered Hale to testify and produce documents called for by a subpoena duces tecum before a grand jury investigating alleged criminal behavior committed by the corporation. Hale argued that his refusal to answer questions was justified because there was no specific charge pending before a grand jury against any particular person and because the answers would tend to incriminate him. 

Issue:

May an order for the production of books and papers constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

Affirming the judgment, the Court found that a grand jury could proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon the examination of witnesses, to inquire for themselves whether a crime cognizable by a court had been committed. The Court also held that Hale could not invoke the Fifth Amendment to protect a corporation of which he was an agent because the privilege was personal. The second issue before the Court concerned the legality of Hale’s refusal to produce documents called for by a subpoena duces tecum. The Court found the search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel, through a subpoena duces tecum, the production of documentary evidence. However, the Court determined that the scope of the subpoena at issue was overly broad. While a search ordinarily implies a quest by an officer of the law, and a seizure contemplates a forcible dispossession of the owner, still, as the court held in the Boyd case, the substance of the offense is the compulsory production of private papers, whether under a search warrant or a subpoena duces tecum, against which the person, be he individual or corporation, is entitled to protection. Applying the test of reasonableness to the present case, the court found that the subpoena duces tecum is far too sweeping in its terms to be regarded as reasonable. It does not require the production of a single contract, or of contracts with a particular corporation, or a limited number of documents, but all understandings, contracts or correspondence between the MacAndrews & Forbes Company, and no less than six different companies, as well as all reports made, and accounts rendered by such companies from the date of the organization of the MacAndrews & Forbes Company as well as all letters received by that company since its organization from more than a dozen different companies, situated in seven different States in the Union.