United States v. Brown
3:10-cr-00100
M.D. La.Jan 21, 2011Background
- Criminal action United States v. Brown involves a subpoena to Louisiana Department of Revenue (LDR) for records concerning Maurice and Mario Brown for 2008–2009.
- LDR moves to Quash, contending confidentiality and privilege under La. Rev. Stat. 47:1508; disclosure prohibited absent statutory exceptions.
- United States opposes, asserting Supremacy Clause controls and that federal law does not recognize state tax records as privileged; argues exception exists where law permits disclosure.
- Courts discuss Finch (Fifth Circuit) and Hampers (First Circuit) as doctrinal frameworks for state tax record privilege and the Wigmore factors.
- Court acknowledges tax records are highly sensitive and protected; adopts Hampers style analysis and requires factual basis similar to §6103(i) showing.
- Order grants LDR’s motion to quash, but allows the United States an ex parte showing of necessity by Jan. 28, 2011, with protective measures if production occurs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state tax records are privileged in federal proceedings | United States argues supremacy and no state privilege under federal law. | LDR contends state confidentiality privilege applies and limits disclosure. | State privilege recognized; production not compelled absent showing. |
| What standard governs disclosure of state tax records in a non-tax federal investigation | US relies on §6103(i) framework for federal records as persuasive | LDR argues state privilege suffices; §6103(i) not directly applicable to state records | Hampers/6103(i)-like showing required; factual basis needed. |
| Effect of Supremacy Clause on state tax-record confidentiality | Supremacy Clause requires production of records irrespective of state law | State confidentiality remains valid absent express permission by federal law | Supremacy Clause does not automatically override state privacy; protective order possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finch, 638 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1981) (two-part Wigmore framework for recognizing state evidentiary privilege)
- In re Hampers, 651 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1981) (adopts Finch framework; state tax records may be qualified privileged; §6103(i) analog considered)
- Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1988) (Supremacy Clause caution; federal courts guard state provisions but balance essential)