IN THIS CASE, THE PETITIONER ARGUED THAT HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN HIS OFFICES WERE SEARCHED FOR PERSONAL RECORDS, AND THE RECORDS WERE SEIZED AND ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. HOWEVER, THE COURT HELD THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS LEGAL AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS SINCE THE STATE HAD PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE ITSELF, AND THE PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN COMPELLED TO DO ANYTHING. THIS WAS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE SIEZED FROM ANDRESON WAS BOTH COMMUNICATIVE AND TESTIMONIAL, AND THUS POTENTIALLY PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT ANDRESEN V. MARYLAND REPRESENTS THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT STANCE ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THE SCOPE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN THAT AREA. INSISTING ON A STRICT DEFINITION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE COURT HAS ERECTED A VERY STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBPOENA AND SEARCH AND SEIZURE WHERE FORMERLY THERE HAD BEEN LITTLE OR NONE. THE HOLDING WAS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT SINCE THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT PHYSICALLY BROUGHT THE EVIDENCE FORWARD BY COURT ORDER, AS OPPOSED TO SEIZURE BY THE STATE, THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPULSION IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SENSE. THE AUTHOR STATES THAT IN SO HOLDING THE COURT HAS PROBABLY ENCOURAGED THE USE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR INVESTIGATION OF WHITE COLLAR CRIMES, INCLUDING INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INVESTIGATIONS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...DMC