# Couch v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 9, 1973 · 409 U.S. 322

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425075

## Case

- **Full name:** COUCH v. UNITED STATES Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 9, 1973
- **Citations:** 409 U.S. 322; 31 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 477; 93 S. Ct. 611; 34 L. Ed. 2d 548; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 23
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brennan
- **Judges:** Powell, Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Douglas, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 693 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425075

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the Fifth Amendment “respects a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought” -- an inner sanctum that necessarily includes an individual’s papers and effects to the extent that the privilege bars their 5 compulsory production and authentication -- a…
- holding that the petitioner lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in bank statements, payroll records, and reports of sales shared with an accountant and subsequently sought by IRS summons in connection with a criminal tax investigation
- stating that the privilege against self-incrimination adheres basically to the person and not to the potentially incriminating information, and that the privilege applies to the possessor and not the owner of the information
- recognizing that “no confidential accountant-client privilege exists under federal law, and no state-created privilege has been recognized in federal cases”
- holding that "the Fifth Amendment privilege is a personal privilege: it adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him"

## Opinion text

*337 Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that it does not establish a per se rule defeating a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege whenever the documents in question are not in the possession of the person claiming the privilege. In my view, the privilege is available to one who turns records over to a third person for custodial safekeeping rather than disclosure of the information, United States v. Guterma, 272 F. 2d 344 (CA2 1959), cf. Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F. 2d 855 (CA8 1956); to one who turns records over to a third person at the inducement of the Government, Stuart v. United States, 416 F. 2d 459 (CA5 1969); to one who places records in a safety deposit box or in hiding; and to similar cases where reasonable steps have been taken to safeguard the confidentiality of the contents of the records. * The privilege cannot extend, however, to the protection of a taxpayer’s records conveyed to a retained accountant for use in preparation of an income tax return, where the accountant is himself obligated to prepare a complete and lawful return. 26 U. S. C. § 7206 *338 (2). It is clear on the facts of this case that the taxpayer has voluntarily removed these records from that “ ‘private enclave where [she] may lead a private life Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964), quoting United States v. Grunewald, 233 F. 2d 556, 581-582 (CA2 1956) (Prank, J., dissenting), rev’d, 353 U. S. 391 (1957), and for that reason I would affirm the judgment below.
In some of these instances, to be sure, the person claiming the privilege would not himself have been the subject of direct Government compulsion. And there is no doubt that the Fifth Amendment is concerned solely with compulsory self-incrimination. But surely the availability of the Fifth Amendment privilege cannot depend on whether or not the owner of the documents is compelled personally to turn the documents over to the Government. If private, testimonial documents held in the owner’s own possession are privileged under the Fifth Amendment, then the Government cannot nullify that privilege by finding a way to obtain the documents without requiring the owner to take them in hand and personally present them to the Government agents. Where the Government takes private records from, for example, a safety deposit box against the will of the owner of the documents, the owner has been compelled, in my view, to incriminate himself within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425075. Public record. Not legal advice.