Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Andresen v. Maryland, 1975 — 423 U.S. 822 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Andresen v. Maryland
423 U.S. 822·Supreme Court of the United States·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 74-1646.
Andresen v. Maryland.
[MAJORITY]
Ct. Sp. App. Md.' Certiorari granted limited to Questions I and II presented by the petition which read as follows:
“I. May an attorney at law, who is a sole practitioner, invoke his privilege against self-incrimination under Amendment Y to the Constitution of the United States, to prevent the introduction of his personal handwritten notes and memoranda, books and records, which were seized from his desk and files in his personal office, under a search warrant held to be otherwise reasonable, into evidence against him at his criminal trial?
“II. Was the search of petitioner’s offices violative of Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States?”