In the case of United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., Inc., et al, 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal grand jury's subpoena duces tecum (a court order requiring a person to appear in court and bring specified documents or records) could not be quashed on grounds of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if it was directed at corporate records custodian who claimed personal privilege. The ruling clarified that an individual cannot resist a subpoena for corporate records based on their Fifth Amendment rights because these rights are personal and do not apply to collective entities like corporations. This decision upheld the principle known as "collective entity rule," which states that individuals lose certain constitutional protections when acting in their official capacity for collective entities such as corporations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a civil penalty in addition to criminal punishment for the same offense is contrary to traditional principles of double jeopardy. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling could potentially lead to abuses of power by prosecutors, who might use the threat of multiple punishments as leverage in plea negotiations or other aspects of criminal proceedings. They also expressed concern about potential unfairness towards defendants, who may face severe financial penalties even after serving prison sentences for their crimes. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of legislative intent behind relevant laws and regulations, arguing instead that Congress did not intend such cumulative punishments when it enacted these provisions.