records do not become eligible for the privilege as “private property” simply because the legal entity which once held them has been dissolved. See, Id. at 88 (citing Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478 (1913)). Therefore, no Fifth Amendment protection is afforded to those records sought by the Bar’s subpoena which either are or were records of the law firm of Bryant & Porter, Ltd. The subpoena also seeks any relevant documents which are personal records of Stephen Bryant. Beilis also recites the long-held conclusion that Fifth Amendment protection extends to “compelled production of . . . personal papers and effects as well as compelled oral testimony.” Id. at 87. Accord, Rees v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 850, 866-67, 127 S.E.2d 406, 417-18 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 964 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the protection may extend to any
holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence recognizing privilege holding that even personal papers of a defendant discovered during a permissive search of his parents home were protected by the privilege holding that search was reasonable where the prosecutor contacted witnesss parents on multiple occasions and issued subpoenas for the witness at the parents home holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege