"Keys, weights, and logs are today’s private papers—bring process, be particular, and prove the need."

— Aditya Mohan, Founder, CEO & Philosopher-Scientist, Robometrics® Machines

Scene — A mahogany‑walled courtroom, New York, winter 1884

Gaslight trembled in the sconces, throwing warm ellipses onto paneled walls and a jury box of wool coats and winter boots. At counsel table, a customs officer slid a folded sheaf across polished wood—the merchant’s foreign invoice—and demanded its production under the Act of June 22, 1874. The merchant’s lawyer did not touch the paper. He stood instead, voice even but tight, and refused. On the evidence table, the vellum quivered in a draft from the corridor as jurors watched. “Produce it,” the officer said again, “or we take the charge as confessed.” A murmur moved through the gallery. The question hung louder than the hiss of the radiators: Papers, or penalty?

What the Court said — 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

Two years later, the Supreme Court answered. Writing for the Court, Justice Joseph P. Bradley linked the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, holding that compelled production of a person’s private papers to secure a forfeiture “is within the scope of the Fourth Amendment” and is the equivalent of an unreasonable search and seizure, and that forcing a party to furnish evidence against himself runs afoul of the Self‑Incrimination Clause. In a line that still bites, Bradley cautioned that the wrong is not only the “breaking of doors and rummaging of drawers,” but the invasion of personal security when the state forces papers from the owner.

Why it matters (2025)

Boyd established a constitutional instinct that still shapes digital disputes: the government cannot simply compel you to furnish the very evidence that convicts you. Later cases narrowed parts of Boyd—contents of pre‑existing business records are generally not privileged (Fisher, Andresen), but the act of production can be testimonial and protected (Fisher, Doe, Hubbell) when producing the material communicates facts like existence, possession, control, or authenticity. The through‑line for modern practice is clear: when the state wants your private papers—or their digital analogs—it must proceed with judicial process, particularity, and narrow tailoring, and it cannot transform refusal into a shortcut to conviction.

AI link — from private papers to private keys, weights, and logs

Today’s “papers.” In AI companies and labs, the functional equivalents of private papers include model encryption keys, signing keys, system prompts, weights and architecture notes, training data manifests, curation and filtering logs, RLHF/red‑team reports, and evaluation notebooks.

What can be compelled, and when?

• Natural persons (engineers, founders) retain Fifth Amendment protections against testimonial self‑incrimination. For example, being forced to reveal a memorized passcode or to identify, authenticate, or assemble a training corpus can be a protected act of production absent immunity.

• Corporations do not have Fifth Amendment privileges, but demands must still satisfy the Fourth Amendment(probable cause, particularity for warrants; relevance and reasonable scope for subpoenas). Courts routinely issue protective orders to guard trade secrets and may require in‑camera review, escrow, or third‑party special masters rather than broad public disclosure.

• Source code as speech (e.g., crypto cases) recognizes First Amendment interests; courts balance those interests against demonstrated need, often limiting disclosure to attorneys’ eyes only with strict access controls rather than forbidding production entirely.

Bottom line in plain language

The government generally cannot force broad disclosure of decryption/model keys or full training logs and data without valid, narrowly tailored judicial process—and even then, courts often cabin access through protective orders, minimization, and scope limits. Fishing expeditions and “turn over everything” demands are vulnerable. By contrast, targeted, particularized demands tied to a legitimate case and accompanied by confidentiality safeguards are where courts are most likely to land.

Designing lawful, narrow requests (and responses)

• Name the thing: Identify the specific key, weight file family, or log date range sought; avoid “all data used to train.”

• State the why: Tie each item to a concrete element or claim (e.g., authorship, chain‑of‑custody, safety violation, fraud).

• Prefer proofs over dumps: Where possible, seek hashes, signatures, reproducibility notebooks, and audit summaries rather than wholesale corpora.

• Use neutral intermediaries: Special masters or third‑party labs can validate without mass disclosure.

• Respect personal privilege: Do not compel an individual to reconstruct or authenticate materials when that act itself is testimonial—grant use immunity if compelled.

• Protect the secrets: Strong protective orders (attorneys’ eyes only, clean rooms, access logs) and redaction protocols preserve legitimate IP while meeting the court’s needs.

A closing thread back to Boyd.

“Papers, or penalty” is still the wrong question. Justice Bradley’s warning reaches into our era: the state’s interest is real, but so is the danger of swapping due process for compulsion. The constitutional answer is the same in 2025 as in 1886: bring process, be particular, and prove the need—and treat today’s keys and logs with the same care we once reserved for a merchant’s private papers.