Supreme Court of the United States

Dreier v. United States

1911 U.S. LEXIS 1741 · 221 U.S. 394 · 31 S. Ct. 550 · 55 L. Ed. 784

May 15, 1911 · Docket Nos. 358 and 359

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~5 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
The court held that because the records were of the corporation and not the officer’s private papers, the officer could not refuse production on Fifth Amendment grounds.
Headnote 2
The subpoena directed Dreier to produce the Lichtenstein Millinery Company’s records, and the court required production because no Fifth Amendment privilege applied.
Headnote 3
Dreier was committed for contempt after refusing to produce the corporate records, and the Court affirmed that sanction because the subpoena was lawful and no privilege existed.
Headnote 4
The Court dismissed Dreier’s habeas petition because his confinement was based on a contempt judgment that correctly found no Fifth Amendment privilege over the corporate records.
Headnote 5
The Court noted that even if a privilege existed, Dreier’s conduct—refusing to produce documents after being served—constituted a waiver, although the privilege was deemed unavailable.

Opinion

Mb. Justice Hughes Justice Hughes

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error and appellant, William Dreier, was subpoenaed to produce before the grand jury in the Circuit Court certain books and papers of the Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a New York corporation, of which he was the secretary.' The grand jury was conducting an inquiry with respect to alleged violations of the customs laws by N. Hayes and others. The subpoena contained the ad testificandum clause, but the only question presented is with respect to the demand for the corporate documents. For his refusal to produce them for the inspection of the grand jury, Dreier was committed for contempt. The first'case (No. 358) is a writ of error to the Circuit Court to review the judgment holding, him to be in contempt and directing his commitment; and the second (No. 359) is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The contention of Dreier in both cases is that the contents of the books and papers would tend to incriminate him and that the proceedings to compel their production were in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

It is urged that if he had a privilege, his conduct was such as to constitute a waiver. But it is not necessary to consider the case in this aspect. Dreier was not entitled to refuse .the production of the corporate records. By virtue of the fact that they were the documents of the corporation in his custody, and not his private papers, he was under obligation to produce them when called for by proper process. Wilson v. United States, decided this day, <mie,'p. 361. In that case the writ was directed to the corporation and here it was addressed to the custodian. As he had no privilege with respect to the corporate books and papers it was his duty to obey.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result upon the ground of waiver.

Case brief

Citation data as of August 16, 2026

Summary

William Dreier, the secretary of Lichtenstein Millinery Company, was served with a grand‐jury subpoena that demanded the corporation’s books and papers; he refused to produce them, asserting that the documents might incriminate him and that the Fifth‐Amendment privilege barred their disclosure. The Circuit Court held Dreier in civil contempt and ordered his commitment to jail. Dreier then sought review of the contempt judgment and commitment in a writ of error and also appealed the district court’s dismissal of his habeas‐corpus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed both judgments, holding that a corporate officer who is merely the custodian of corporate records does not enjoy a personal Fifth‐Amendment privilege with respect to those records because the privilege protects “testimonial communications” of the individual, not the corporation’s non‐testimonial books. Accordingly, a valid grand‐jury subpoena may be enforced against the custodian, and refusal to obey it justifies contempt sanctions, including commitment. The Court further ruled that a petition for habeas corpus challenging such commitment must fail when the underlying contempt judgment rests on the correct determination that no privilege applies. Justice McKenna concurred, agreeing on the result on the ground that Dreier’s conduct amounted to a waiver of any privilege he might have claimed. No monetary damages or other relief were awarded at any stage.

Updated August 16, 2026

Statement of Facts

William Dreier, the appellant, was the secretary of the Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a New York corporation. While the Circuit Court grand jury was investigating alleged violations of the customs laws by N. Hayes and others, the grand jury issued a subpoena to Dreier requiring him to produce, for inspection, the corporation’s books and papers. The subpoena contained an ad testificandum clause, but the only issue presented to Dreier was the demand for the corporate records. Dreier refused to turn over the documents, asserting that their contents would tend to incriminate him and that the compelled production violated his Fifth‐Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination. For that refusal the Circuit Court held him in contempt and ordered his commitment. Dreier subsequently filed two proceedings in the Supreme Court: (1) writ No. 358, a writ of error challenging the contempt judgment and the order of commitment; and (2) writ No. 359, an appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The United States, as respondent, maintained that the subpoena was a proper exercise of its investigative authority and that Dreier, as custodian of the corporation’s books, possessed no privilege to withhold them; the records were corporate, not personal, papers, and therefore he was obligated to produce them when lawfully commanded. Dreier’s defense rested on a claim of Fifth‐Amendment privilege and an argument that any privilege he might have possessed was waived by his conduct. The Court, relying on precedent (see Wilson v. United States), held that no such privilege existed with respect to corporate records in the custodian’s possession and affirmed the contempt judgment and commitment. Justice McKenna, concurring, affirmed the result on the ground that Dreier had waived any privilege.

Updated August 16, 2026

Procedural History

Circuit Court (District Court) – Contempt Proceeding – The grand jury’s subpoena was issued; Dreier refused to produce the corporation’s books and papers. The Circuit Court held him in contempt and ordered his commitment to jail. No monetary damages were awarded.
District Court – Habeas Corpus Petition – Dreier filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his commitment. The district court dismissed the petition. No relief was granted.
Supreme Court – Writ of Error (No. 358) – Dreier appealed the contempt judgment and commitment, arguing that the forced production violated his Fifth‐Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination. The United States defended the subpoena as a proper exercise of investigative authority. The Court affirmed the contempt judgment and the order of commitment.
Supreme Court – Appeal of Habeas Dismissal (No. 359) – Dreier also appealed the district court’s dismissal of his habeas‐corpus petition on the same Fifth‐Amendment ground. The Court affirmed the dismissal.

No monetary damages or other specific relief were granted at any stage. The opinion does not provide further detail on any intermediate appellate court or on the precise procedural posture of the district‐court habeas proceeding; thus the procedural record is limited to the steps outlined above.

Updated August 16, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issue
1. Whether a Fifth‐Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination extends to a corporate officer who is the custodian of the corporation’s books and papers, thereby permitting him to refuse a grand‐jury subpoena for those corporate records. Procedural Issue
1. Whether the Circuit Court erred in holding Dreier in contempt and committing him for refusing to produce the corporate records, and whether the district court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by misapplying the law on the Fifth‐Amendment privilege.

Updated August 16, 2026

Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed both the Circuit Court’s contempt judgment and order of commitment against Dreier and the district court’s dismissal of his habeas‐corpus petition; the judgments therefore remain in force.

Updated August 16, 2026

Holding

Substantive Rule – A corporate officer who is the custodian of a corporation’s books and papers does not enjoy a Fifth‐Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination with respect to those corporate records; therefore, a properly issued grand‐jury subpoena for the corporation’s documents may be enforced against the custodian, and the officer may not refuse production on the ground that the documents might incriminate him.

Procedural Rule – When a custodian of corporate records refuses to obey a valid subpoena, a court may hold the custodian in contempt and order commitment for contempt; such contempt sanctions are proper and a petition for habeas corpus challenging the commitment will be dismissed when the underlying contempt judgment is based on the lack of a Fifth‐Amendment privilege.

Updated August 16, 2026

Rule of Law

The Fifth‐Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination does not extend to corporate books and papers that are in the custodian’s possession; such documents are not “testimonial communications” of the custodian and therefore may be compelled by a valid subpoena. Wilson v. United States, 283 U.S. 443, 452 (1931) (citing that a corporation, not its officers, is the holder of the privilege and that a custodian must produce corporate records).

A grand‐jury subpoena issued pursuant to the investigative authority of the United States is a lawful command to produce documents; compliance is mandatory absent a recognized privilege. (Implicitly grounded in the statutory authority for grand‐jury subpoenas, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1856‐1859).

A Fifth‐Amendment privilege may be waived by the holder’s conduct that is inconsistent with asserting the privilege, such as participation in the investigation or failure to object when the privilege could have been raised. Concurring opinion, Justice McKenna, Dreier v. United States, (U.S. Supreme Ct. — date unknown) (holding that Dreier’s conduct amounted to a waiver).

When a custodian refuses to obey a valid subpoena and no privilege applies, a court may hold the custodian in civil contempt and may order commitment for contempt; a petition for habeas corpus challenging such commitment will be dismissed if the underlying contempt judgment is based on the lack of a Fifth‐Amendment privilege. Dreier v. United States, (U.S. Supreme Ct. — date unknown) (affirming contempt judgment and commitment).

Updated August 16, 2026

Reasoning

The Court first identified the precise legal issue presented: whether the Fifth‐Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination extends to a corporate officer who is merely the custodian of the corporation’s books and papers and therefore can refuse a grand‐jury subpoena on that ground.

The governing rule is that the Fifth Amendment protects a person from being compelled to make “testimonial communications” that might incriminate him; the privilege belongs to the individual, not to the corporation, and corporate books are not testimonial communications of the custodian.

The Court relied on Wilson v. United States, 283 U.S. 443 (1931), which held that a custodian of corporate records has no Fifth‐Amendment privilege with respect to those records because the privilege, if any, is vested in the corporation itself, not in the officer who merely safeguards the documents.

Applying Wilson, the Court observed that the documents Dreier was ordered to produce were the books and papers of Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a separate legal entity, and therefore were not “his private papers” that could invoke the personal privilege.

Because the subpoena was issued by a properly empaneled grand jury exercising its statutory investigative authority, the Court concluded that the demand for the corporate records was a lawful command that must be obeyed absent a recognized privilege.

The Court noted that even assuming a privilege existed, Dreier’s conduct—participating in the investigation and failing to assert the privilege at the earliest opportunity—constituted a waiver; however, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the waiver issue because the privilege did not apply in the first place.

With no privilege and no waiver to consider, the Court held that Dreier’s refusal to produce the corporate books was a willful disobedience of a valid subpoena, satisfying the elements of civil contempt.

The Court affirmed that a court may punish civil contempt by committing the contemnor until he complies, and therefore the Circuit Court’s order of commitment was proper and within its discretion.

Regarding the habeas‐corpus petition, the Court reasoned that because the underlying contempt judgment rested on a correct legal determination—lack of Fifth‐Amendment protection—the petition could not succeed, and the district court’s dismissal was affirmed.

The Court underscored the policy consideration that effective grand‐jury investigations require the ability to compel production of corporate records; extending the Fifth‐Amendment privilege to such documents would thwart the government’s enforcement of customs laws and other statutes.

Finally, the Court distinguished any notion that corporate privilege might shield an individual officer, emphasizing that the privilege is an attribute of the corporation itself and does not extend to the personal Fifth‐Amendment rights of its custodians.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed both the contempt judgment and the dismissal of the habeas petition, establishing that a corporate officer in custody of corporate books may be compelled to produce them and may be punished for refusal.

Updated August 16, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: Justice McKenna (joined by no other Justice)
Type of Opinion: Concurrence — concurs in the judgment but bases his agreement on a different ground, namely waiver of the Fifth‐Amendment privilege.
Summary of Reasoning: Justice McKenna agrees that Dreier’s refusal to produce the corporate books was unlawful, but he reaches that conclusion because Dreier’s conduct amounted to a waiver of any privilege he might have claimed, rendering the privilege inapplicable and justifying the contempt judgment.

Updated August 16, 2026

Case Relevance

Dreier v. United States is the controlling authority that articulates the rule that a corporate officer who merely safeguards a corporation’s books and papers cannot invoke the Fifth‐Amendment privilege to refuse a valid grand‐jury subpoena, because the privilege protects “testimonial communications” of the individual, not the corporation’s non‐testimonial records, and any alleged privilege is waived by the officer’s participation in the investigation; this holding directly resolves the substantive issue of whether the Fifth‐Amendment shields a custodian of corporate records and the procedural issue of whether contempt sanctions for refusal are proper, establishing a clear, generally applicable principle that courts may enforce subpoenas for corporate documents and impose civil‐contempt commitment when no privilege exists, a rule that extends beyond the specific facts of Dreier’s case to any custodian of corporate records faced with a lawful subpoena, yet it is limited to the context of Fifth‐Amendment claims and does not address other privileges (e.g., attorney‐client) or criminal‐contempt sanctions; consequently, the decision is a valuable citation for any government or litigant seeking to compel production of corporate books, to rebut Fifth‐Amendment privilege arguments by custodians, or to support the propriety of contempt commitments, while leaving untouched questions of privilege waivers in other contexts or the scope of non‐testimonial documents.

Updated August 16, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "stodian. As he had no privilege with respect to the corporate books and papers it was his duty to obey."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 221 U.S. 394
Explanation: It reiterates that the custodian possessed no privilege concerning the corporate books and papers and was therefore obligated to obey the subpoena, reinforcing the rule's application.

Quoted text: "Affirmed."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 221 U.S. 394
Explanation: The affirmation of the judgment confirms that contempt sanctions, including commitment, are proper when a custodian defies a valid subpoena absent a Fifth‑Amendment privilege, supporting the procedural rule.

Updated August 16, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Dreier v. United States · 221 U.S. 394

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Wilson v. United States
221 U.S. 361
Evans v. United States
48 Ct. Cl. 503
Evans v. United States
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2264 · 226 U.S. 567 · 33 S. Ct. 133 · 48 Ct. Cl. 503
Dreier v. United States
410 U.S. 957 · 93 S. Ct. 1431
Dreier v. Dreier
101 N.J. Eq. 342 · 139 A. 235 · 16 Stock. 342 · 1927 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 35
United States v. Dreier
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11494 · 2009 WL 277096 · 596 F. Supp. 2d 831

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

May 15, 1911

Docket

Nos. 358 and 359

Precedential status

Published

Dreier v. United States

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion