Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 63.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

19 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

President until he leaves office,12 it may be possible to elim-
inate the problem by waiver.13  And if the prosecutor’s stat-
ute-of-limitations concerns relate to parties other than the 
President, he should be required to spell that out. 

There may be other good reasons why immediate enforce-
ment  is  important,  such  as  the  risk  that  evidence  or  im-
portant leads will be lost, but if a prosecutor believes that
immediate  enforcement  is  needed  for  such  a  reason,  the 
prosecutor should be required to provide a reasonably spe-
cific explanation why that is so and why alternative means, 
such as measures to preserve evidence and prevent spolia-
tion, would not suffice. 

E 
Unlike this rule, which would not undermine any legiti-
mate state interests, the opinion of the Court provides no 
real protection for the Presidency.  The Court discounts the 
risk of harassment and assumes that state prosecutors will 
observe constitutional limitations, ante, at 18, and I also as-
sume that the great majority of state prosecutors will carry 
out their responsibilities responsibly.  But for the reasons 
noted, there is a very real risk that some will not. 

The  Court  emphasizes  the  protection  afforded  by
“longstanding rules of grand jury secrecy,” ante, at 15, but 
that is no answer to the burdens that subpoenas may inflict,
and  in  any  event,  grand  jury  secrecy  rules  are  of  limited 
value  as  safeguards  against    harassment.  State  laws  on 

—————— 

12 See  N. Y.  Crim.  Proc.  Law  Ann.  §30.10(4)(a)  (West  2010)  (statute
tolled when defendant outside the jurisdiction); see also People v. Knobel, 
94 N. Y. 2d 226, 230, 723 N. E. 2d 550, 552 (1999) (explaining New York 
rule for tolling the limitations period when a defendant is “continuously 
outside” the State and concluding that “all periods of a day or more that 
a  nonresident  defendant 
totaled 
and toll the Statute of Limitations”). 

out-of-State 

should  be 

is 

13 See  People  v.  Parilla,  8  N. Y.  3d  654,  659,  870  N. E.  2d  142,  145 
(2007); R. Davis & T. Muskus, New York Practice with Forms, 33A Car-
mody-Wait 2d §186:34 (June 2020).