Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1986–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025Under the act of production doctrine, "a purely physical act may nonetheless be testimonial because of what it communicates 'wholly aside from the contents' of the thing produced" ( Payne , 99 F4th at 509 , quoting Fisher v United States , 425 US 391, 410 [1976]). 2025Under the act of production doctrine, "a purely physical act may nonetheless be testimonial because of what it communicates 'wholly aside from the contents' of the thing produced" ( Payne , 99 F4th at 509 , quoting Fisher v United States , 425 US 391, 410 [1976]). | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Hubbellgreen2 sentences2025The physical act of production will be considered to have a testimonial aspect if it relates information about the existence of, control over, or authenticity of the potential evidence ( see Hubbell , 530 US at 37 ; Doe , 487 US at 215-216 ; Payne , 99 F4th at 510 ). 2025The physical act of production will be considered to have a testimonial aspect if it relates information about the existence of, control over, or authenticity of the potential evidence ( see Hubbell , 530 US at 37 ; Doe , 487 US at 215-216 ; Payne , 99 F4th at 510 ). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Wadegreen2 sentences2025Under the physical trait case law, physical acts are not testimonial if they "do not involve the testimonial capacities of the accused and instead only compel an individual to provide law enforcement with access to an immutable physical characteristic" ( Payne , 99 F4th at 509 ; see United States v Wade , 388 US 218, 222-223 [1967]). 2025Under the physical trait case law, physical acts are not testimonial if they "do not involve the testimonial capacities of the accused and instead only compel an individual to provide law enforcement with access to an immutable physical characteristic" ( Payne , 99 F4th at 509 ; see United States v Wade , 388 US 218, 222-223 [1967]). | 1 | 1 |
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknightgreen2 sentences2007Although the act of production doctrine has most commonly been applied to the surrender of subpoenaed documents, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that it can also apply to the compelled production of other types of evidence (see Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v Bouknight, 493 US 549 [1990]; but see United States v Patane, 542 US 630 , 644 n 7 [2004]). 2007The Fifth Amendment’s protection may nonetheless be implicated because the act of complying with the government’s demand testifies to the existence, possession, or authenticity of the things produced” ( 493 US at 554-555 [internal quotation marks, citations and brackets omitted]; see United States v Hubbell, 530 US 27, 36 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Patanegreen1 sentence2007Although the act of production doctrine has most commonly been applied to the surrender of subpoenaed documents, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that it can also apply to the compelled production of other types of evidence (see Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v Bouknight, 493 US 549 [1990]; but see United States v Patane, 542 US 630 , 644 n 7 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jeffrey Brown
green
2 sentences2025Two different lines of cases are implicated in the pertinent Fifth Amendment analysis: (1) the physical trait cases (where compelled physical acts, such as standing in a lineup or providing a handwriting exemplar, are not testimonial); and (2) the act of production doctrine cases (where purely physical acts can be testimonial when the act implicitly communicates the existence, control, or authenticity of evidence) ( see Brown , 125 F4th at 1202-1203 ; Payne , 99 F4th at 508-510 ). 2025Two different lines of cases are implicated in the pertinent Fifth Amendment analysis: (1) the physical trait cases (where compelled physical acts, such as standing in a lineup or providing a handwriting exemplar, are not testimonial); and (2) the act of production doctrine cases (where purely physical acts can be testimonial when the act implicitly communicates the existence, control, or authenticity of evidence) ( see Brown , 125 F4th at 1202-1203 ; Payne , 99 F4th at 508-510 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Doe v. United States
green
2 sentences2025The physical act of production will be considered to have a testimonial aspect if it relates information about the existence of, control over, or authenticity of the potential evidence ( see Hubbell , 530 US at 37 ; Doe , 487 US at 215-216 ; Payne , 99 F4th at 510 ). 2025The physical act of production will be considered to have a testimonial aspect if it relates information about the existence of, control over, or authenticity of the potential evidence ( see Hubbell , 530 US at 37 ; Doe , 487 US at 215-216 ; Payne , 99 F4th at 510 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Jeremy Payne
green
2 sentences2025Two different lines of cases are implicated in the pertinent Fifth Amendment analysis: (1) the physical trait cases (where compelled physical acts, such as standing in a lineup or providing a handwriting exemplar, are not testimonial); and (2) the act of production doctrine cases (where purely physical acts can be testimonial when the act implicitly communicates the existence, control, or authenticity of evidence) ( see Brown , 125 F4th at 1202-1203 ; Payne , 99 F4th at 508-510 ). 2025Under the act of production doctrine, "a purely physical act may nonetheless be testimonial because of what it communicates 'wholly aside from the contents' of the thing produced" ( Payne , 99 F4th at 509 , quoting Fisher v United States , 425 US 391, 410 [1976]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated October 29, 1992. United States of America v. John Doe
green
1 sentence2008If the act of production doctrine applies, an individual may rely on the protection of the Fifth Amendment to withhold both personal and corporate documents in his possession (In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F3d 87 [1993], cert denied sub nom. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Doe v. United States
green
1 sentence2008Doe v United States, 510 US 1091 [1994]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Prudential Securities Inc. v. Brigianos
green
1 sentence2002The act-of-production doctrine does not apply because defendant freely admits to having the documents in his possession and their existence and possession are therefore a “foregone conclusion” (see Prudential Sec. v Brigianos 233 AD2d 18, 22 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated December 14, 1984 v. Kuriansky
green
1 sentence1986(See, Matter of Moe v Kuriansky, 120 AD2d 594, 595 ; Matter of Grand Jury v Kuriansky, 113 AD2d 49 [1st Dept 1985]; see also, Matter of Shoe Ring, NYLJ, May 16, 1986, p 16, col 5 [Sup Ct, Kings County, Miller, J.]; and see, unpublished opn of this court in Matter of Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum dated Mar. 14, 1986, County Ct, Putnam County, May 8, 1986.) Moreover, even if, arguendo, the "act of production” is found to apply to the individual who acts as the corporate custodian, the corporation would still have to appoint another agent to produce the corporate records. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Moe v. Kuriansky
green
1 sentence1986(See, Matter of Moe v Kuriansky, 120 AD2d 594, 595 ; Matter of Grand Jury v Kuriansky, 113 AD2d 49 [1st Dept 1985]; see also, Matter of Shoe Ring, NYLJ, May 16, 1986, p 16, col 5 [Sup Ct, Kings County, Miller, J.]; and see, unpublished opn of this court in Matter of Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum dated Mar. 14, 1986, County Ct, Putnam County, May 8, 1986.) Moreover, even if, arguendo, the "act of production” is found to apply to the individual who acts as the corporate custodian, the corporation would still have to appoint another agent to produce the corporate records. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Doe
green
1 sentence1986In Doe ( 465 US 605, 607 , supra) at footnote 3 to the majority opinion of the court delivered by Powell, J., the high court specifically pointed out that, "We therefore understand that this case concerns only business documents and records not required by law to be kept or disclosed to a public agency.” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in the Fox case (supra), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in holding that the financial records of respondent, a doctor and sole proprietor, would be at least potentially privileged under the 5th Amendment act of production doctrine, also pointed out by way of | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.