Source: https://virginialibrariesjournal.org/articles/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889/
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 15:58:52
Document Index: 444025596

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 19', '§ 9']

Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise
Reading: Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and...
How to Cite: Strickland, L.S., 2003. Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise. Virginia Libraries, 49(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889
Of course, there are many permutations of this scenario beginning with the official who's making the request. Instead of the detective in a neighboring state, it could be a detective in your county, a detective in another county in your state, or the FBI. Indeed, if we change the subject of the e-mail to insider-trading information, the demand could be from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Librarians know that any answer to these questions involves the need to protect patron confidentiality as required by law, and hence, requires appropriate judicial process. But that is the question: What is appropriate judicial process-a generic term used here to represent any form of government order to produce documents or information? This essay explores this relatively complex question given the differences in type of evidence sought ( e.g. , electronic communications or documentary records), the form of judicial process ( e.g. , search warrant, subpoena, or otherwise), the interest ( e.g. , law enforcement or intelligence) and, of course, the authority involved ( e.g. , local, state, or federal). In doing so, it is our intent to increase awareness of the relevant legal issues and to serve as a starting point for additional discussions with your legal counsel.
To begin our discussion, it is important to note that the terminology of judicial process is often used loosely in the media and in conversation (" We just received a court order! ") and hence has led to confusion. But the different forms of judicial process and authority need to be specified.
A real-time intercept order requires that more be shown than in a regular search warrant, and it must be authorized by the most senior levels of the Department of Justice. It applies to any real-time voice or data transmission, may be used only for specific crimes ( e.g. , murder, narcotics or terrorism), and only when normal investigative techniques for obtaining the information have failed, are likely to fail, or are too dangerous. The intercept order does two things: authorizes the law enforcement agency to conduct the intercept and the service provider to provide necessary assistance. And, when the provider cannot comply, Carnivore 1 may be deployed.
A traditional search warrant is used for stored electronic communications ( e.g. , e-mail at a service provider and now voice mail, pursuant to the USA Patriot Act). It requires a determination by a federal judge that probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the information sought is material to that offense.
Less difficult yet is a court order to obtain transactional records. Such orders must be granted automatically if the government certifies that there are " ... reasonable grounds to believe data is relevant to ongoing criminal investigation. " Transactional records take three forms: "pen register" information (i.e., telephone numbers dialed), "trap and trace" information (i.e., incoming telephone numbers), and under the USA Patriot Act, "routing and address" information (i.e., electronic communications headers but not content).
Least difficult of all is an administrative or grand jury subpoena, which is issued by the government itself, without judicial assistance, to obtain information. Typically in the electronic arena, such subpoenas are used to identify the subscriber, including addresses and means of payment.
Outside of ECPA, we are typically concerned with documentary evidence ( e.g. , business records, such as sign-in sheets for computer use), and here criminal law enforcement authorities at the federal and state level use either a search warrant or a subpoena duces tecum. The primary and most significant distinction between these forms of judicial process is that the former is served and executed immediately by law enforcement officers with or without one's cooperation, while the subpoena requires one to produce records at a specific future time and is thus substantially less intrusive than a search warrant. The following additional points more completely describe the scope and relationship of these two forms of process:
First, search warrants under the Fourth Amendment reach not only " instrumentalities, fruits, or contraband " but indeed any item of " evidential value ." Warden of Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967). This means, for example, that a search warrant may be directed to a library for any information, patron specific or otherwise, provided that it has evidentiary value.
Fifth, and turning to the issue of subpoenas, the term subpoena is really shorthand. Subpoenas requiring a witness to appear are termed a " subpoena ad testificandum " and those requiring a witness to produce records at a specific time and place are termed a " subpoena duces tecum ."
Sixth, a subpoena may be issued by state or federal law-enforcement authorities in the context of grand jury proceedings or other criminal investigation, by criminal defense counsel, and by regulatory agencies if authorized by law. In addition, parties in civil litigation may also utilize subpoenas, and it is possible to receive such process in the context of family law matters.
And, eighth, remember that at least in the federal sphere, the showing required to quash a criminal subpoena is difficult to meet since a criminal grand jury subpoena is deemed valid " unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury investigation ." United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991).
What does this mean for our hypothetical librarian? To the extent that law enforcement is concerned with electronic communications ( e.g. , e-mail or the records concerning e-mail) then one of the four types of ECPA order will be received. To the extent library business records are sought ( e.g. , computer-use logs) then either a regular search warrant or subpoena would be received, depending largely on the discretion of law enforcement officials. So while your legal counsel might argue that a search warrant is not appropriate for an innocent third party, it could certainly be issued and executed. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held specifically that federal law permits the use of search warrants for the search and seizure of evidence in the possession of even innocent third parties (cf., the Zucher decision).
Before leaving the sphere of criminal process, our librarian asks one more question: I've heard of exigent circumstances, but that can't apply to a library, can it? The answer is a definite "perhaps!" The courts have recognized this as an exception to the general requirement for a search warrant and have thus upheld an immediate, warrantless seizure when and where necessary to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence or in the words of the Department of Justice " some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts ." Since exigent seizures are almost always challenged, the courts look generally to the degree of urgency involved ( e.g. , is the evidence about to be removed or destroyed or a crime about to be committed) and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant. Clearly, the destruction issue plays a prominent role when considering electronic information, and to the extent that a library's practice or policy would result in the loss of information, an immediate seizure could result. However, in every case, a finding of exigent circumstances is based on the specific facts, and generalized arguments will not suffice if the innocent third party makes clear his intention to preserve evidence pending the arrival of appropriate judicial process. Moreover, the authority extends only so far as is necessary to prevent immediate destruction and no further. Accordingly, an exigent seizure would not authorize a subsequent warrantless search since the exigency would typically have ended.
So far, we have explored the challenges presented to our hypothetical library on the Chesapeake by a daunting array of legal process-intercept orders, search warrants, subpoenas, and even the very obscure National Security Letters. Now we must consider the issue of jurisdiction-a term that defines the legal reach of a given court. In our hypothetical case, could a Maryland state court (assuming the detective secured a court order of some type) compel a Virginia library to produce evidence? Or could a federal court in Maryland do so if we were concerned with a federal crime? To the disappointment of citizens and information professionals alike, the answer to both questions is " maybe ."
The second exception requires that we broaden our consideration of documentary evidence to include electronic communications information and consider the USA Patriot Act's several substantive changes within the reach of judicial process. Today, all ECPA-orders for electronic communications information ( e.g. , search warrants for stored e-mail and voice-mail messages, as well as court orders for transactional records) are valid nationwide, whereas previously, and anachronistically, only wiretap orders were so valid. Additionally, search warrants for documentary or physical evidence in terrorism cases- but only terrorism cases -are now valid nationwide. Both of these enlargements of jurisdiction presume, of course, that the issuing federal court has jurisdiction over the offense. What is the impact of these changes for our hypothetical case? It means that a Maryland federal court could issue an ECPA order valid in Virginia for electronic communications information but not, in general, a search warrant for library business records, unless the case involved terrorism.
Moving our discussion from search warrants to subpoenas for documentary evidence (and/or attendance of a witness) in non-terrorism criminal matters, this form of process is issued typically by clerks of the court upon application of the government, usually in the context of grand jury proceedings or a trial, or by myriad federal agencies with statutory subpoena authority, or even by defense counsel. Such subpoenas are regulated by Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and may be served at any place within the United States and by any U.S. Marshal or any other person ( e.g. , a private person employed for such a purpose) provided only that they are not a party and at least 18 years of age. Typically the individual serving a subpoena issued on behalf of the government will be a Deputy U.S. Marshal from your judicial district or an FBI Special Agent. So, what can our hypothetical librarian anticipate? Quite certainly, a federal prosecutor in any state could issue, and require compliance with, a subpoena for library records in Virginia. And, as discussed previously, the choice of the more intrusive search warrant or less intrusive subpoena is left to the discretion of the federal government.
Virginia is an example of those states allowing for a wide reach of process in general but also a degree of complexity with respect to electronic communications information. Search warrants may be issued by magistrates who are appointed to given state districts, composed of one or more counties, as well as general district courts (courts not of record) and circuit courts (of record) that sit in each county and independent city. While the magistrate or judge may only issue a warrant within his own geographical jurisdiction, it may be directed to any law enforcement authority-state, city, or federal-anywhere in the state of Virginia. See Code of Virginia § 19.2-56 and Commonwealth v. Stepp, 1998 Va. Cir. Lexis 102 (holding that a magistrate in Loudoun County, where traffic death occurred, may issue search warrant for execution in Fairfax County). However, for electronic communications search warrants, the rules are different: Intercept warrants as well as "pen register" and "trap and trace" warrants must be issued by a judge within the jurisdiction where the warrant is to be executed, while non-content warrants ( e.g. , subscriber-identifying information) follow the general rule and may be issued by any authority within the state. See Code of Virginia § 19.2-66 (wiretaps), § 19.2-70.2 (trap and trace) and § 19.2-70.3 (non-content).
Maryland, however, is an example of other states having certain limitations on the reach of in-state courts. In Maryland there are circuit courts-common law courts of general jurisdiction in each county-where the jurisdiction and reach of process is limited to the given county. However, Maryland also has the District Court, a unified court of limited statutory jurisdiction created in 1970, where the jurisdiction is statewide and allows the issuance of a search warrant for execution in any county. See Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691 (1989). Thus, if we modify slightly the facts of our hypothetical , a detective located in any Maryland county could secure a valid search warrant for execution on the Eastern Shore, but only from the District Court. As for electronic communications information, the circuit courts are the only courts authorized to issue process for wiretaps (Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 10-410-414), stored communications and transactional records (Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 10-4A-01 through 08), as well as "pen register" and "trap and trace" data (Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 10-4B-01 through 05), and thus geographical limitations apply.
The enforcement of out-of-state criminal judicial process ( e.g. , a criminal subpoena for documentary evidence) is often not explicit in state laws and typically proceeds on general common law and constitutional precepts of comity or mutual recognition and cooperation among levels of government or among various courts. In numerous cases each year, an out-of-state law enforcement agency must attempt to secure documentary evidence from a witness or institution within another state--in our hypothetical a Maryland-to-Virginia reach. In general, the process is that the out-of-state law enforcement agency first obtains a subpoena from a court in its own state and then requests that the foreign law enforcement agency duplicate the process in a court in the foreign state. In our hypothetical case, the Maryland detective would first seek a court order from a Maryland court in the appropriate county, have that order presented and a similar order entered in Virginia, and have the new Virginia order served by local law enforcement-all in all a tedious but not difficult process. In this regard it should be noted that some states are easing this process. For example, this year Delaware enacted a law that permits the Delaware attorney general to issue a subpoena in any criminal case where the out-of-state agency has obtained a court order from its own state court.
Similar processes apply for witnesses in criminal prosecutions but are more explicitly regulated by statute-all U.S. states have adopted a version of the " Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings ." The Virginia law is quite typical and indicates that when a foreign witness is required by a given state, the authorities in that state shall certify the need under the seal of their court and present that certificate to a court of record where the witness is located and where, after a hearing to determine that the witness is material and necessary and his attendance will not cause undue hardship, an appropriate order to appear is issued. See Code of Virginia §§ 19.2-272 through 282. For the substantially similar process in other states, see Md. Code Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 9-301-307, as well as the case In re State of California , 57 Md. App. 804 (1984) for a discussion of the law and the process.
An interesting question has arisen in several states as to whether this Uniform Act that secures witnesses from outside a state also authorizes the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to compel merely the production of documentary evidence. While the principle of comity allows such subpoenas (as we have discussed above), the benefits of statutory authority increase certainty. Most, if not all state courts, have allowed use of the Uniform Act to consider this issue in this additional manner, including those in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. See , e.g. , Ex Parte Simmons , 668 So.2d 901 (Ct. Crim. App. Ala. 1995).
Second, another example of public data would be information available under the state freedom of information (FOI) statute. An example relevant to our hypothetical case would be disclosing the IP addresses of a library's public Internet computers.
Third, under USA Patriot Act amendments to the ECPA, the content of messages and subscriber data may be shared voluntarily (1) where immediate danger is presented, or (2) if necessary to protect ISP property. In such cases, the Patriot Act also clarifies immunity to allow good faith reliance on this statutory authority.
What do these concepts allow in our hypothetical? Could our Chesapeake librarian confirm that a given person had visited the library? I suggest that the answer to this limited question is yes , but, of course, there would be no requirement to do so. Could our Chesapeake librarian disclose electronic content sent by the user or other user information? I suggest here that the answer is probably no , unless there was a reasonable showing of immediate danger to an individual or a threat to a library's electronic infrastructure. The bottom-line-immediately discuss any such requests with your legal counsel before taking any action.
We begin our discussion by noting that neither the USA Patriot Act nor any other law requires a provider to change his current data retention practices or to reconfigure his system to collect information if presented with judicial process. That said, several factors should be noted. First, the FBI could insist on deployment of their Carnivore system if the provider could not comply with the judicial process. Second, a provider is obligated to preserve specific existing information, if so requested by law enforcement pending issuance of an appropriate court order or other process. And, third, the term "obligated" should be interpreted as "required" given that the law generally prohibits the destruction of information once notice is given or one has reason to believe that it has evidentiary value.
Developing the legal and operational basis for library business
Creating an RCS begins with appraisal which is the process by which we evaluate the totality of our physical and electronic records in order to determine their final disposition. Typically, the records are designated as either permanent (so determined by historic value), or temporary where they may be destroyed when no longer needed or after a certain period of time. Also typically, records that are yet unappraised are treated as permanent in order to avoid inappropriate destruction, and all appraisal decisions should be approved by the appropriate state archivist.
Essential to the appraisal process are several specific activities.
First is the records inventory, which is a review of the agency functions as reflected in its program responsibilities, structure, and authorities.
Second is the designation of records series, a convenient way of grouping files to permit their management as a group because they relate to a particular subject or function or have some other relationship arising out of their creation, receipt, or use.
Third is the creation of a file plan, a day-to-day tool for records managers, as well as program and administrative personnel to ensure that records are organized and retained as they are created and/or received.
And fourth is scheduling, the determination and recording of the business and historic value of each record series in terms of the time the records will be retained ( i.e. , the retention period). The key point in this discussion is that a records control schedule is not optional administrative overhead. It is a requirement of law, as well as a critical facet of asset management since records are a business asset. Moreover, as we have noted, a records control schedule is the predicate to responding effectively and legally to any judicially compelled disclosure of records.
A frequent question is " How do we build an RCS? " The answer starts, of course, with the appraisal process but can be substantially assisted by the adoption of applicable general records schedules (GRS), a term used in the federal government, or common record schedules or categories, a term used by certain state governments. These general or common schedules include items such as budget, accounting, personnel, and computer administration records that may be created by any local government agency. These would be augmented then by institution-specific record schedules that are created by a specific agency and reflect the unique activities of that agency. Most often, your state archivist will have promulgated relevant general and specific schedules that reflect applicable state law and greatly assist in building your RCS. It is critical to note here that state schedules may mandate specific retention periods that you are not free to change without negotiation and agreement with your state archivist. For example, some states require that circulation records be maintained for three years. Depending on how such records are defined, your automated circulation data collection may not be compliant. In any event and as a point of reference, a typical library may have an RCS of 10-25 specific records series, containing a total of 100-300 line entries.
An additional step is designing software and administrative systems to collect, save, and dispose of electronic data in accordance with the RCS. All too often, we believe that we maintain a certain level of patron-specific data only to discover our reports reflect that level of data but our system maintains more. Or, we discover that the system can reconstruct older patron-specific information from a combination of preserved transactions data ( e.g. , log data), back-up files, or system utilities that rebuild links or recover de-indexed data. Two information technology facts must be remembered: First, a paper or electronic report reflects only what a programmer instructed the system to write or display. It may not reflect the totality of the system information. Second, unless data is overwritten, it can often be recovered even if linkages have been broken. Both criminal investigations and civil cases can reach such data. In sum, the RCS is the authority by which every information professional interacts with the information in his charge.
We turn to the second essential management procedure-a policy to guide staff in the receipt and handling of judicial process. Employees should not be placed in a position of interpreting and responding to judicial process. But that is exactly the situation when management does not promulgate clear policies, in which only senior management ( e.g. , the library director) and legal counsel are authorized to act on received judicial process. A proposed policy follows:
"Judicial process" is a general term used in this policy directive to encompass a complex array of demands for information under the authority of a court or judicially-related process. The complexity comes from the differences in types of evidence sought, e.g. , electronic communications information or documentary records; the form of judicial process, e.g. , intercept order, search warrant, court order, subpoena, or otherwise; the interest, e.g. , criminal law enforcement, government regulatory, intelligence, or civil; the government authority involved, e.g. , local, state, or federal; and the issuing authority, e.g. , judge, magistrate, court clerk, law enforcement or private authority.
Moreover, it is not unusual to receive verbal requests from law enforcement and other government officials without benefit of any judicial process. While it is not unlawful to request information, it may well result in criminal prosecutions, and it is certainly unlawful for library staff to release patron-specific information under such circumstances.
Accordingly, it is the policy of this library to comply with all proper judicial process while preserving patron confidentiality to the extent allowed by law. However, given the complexity of these matters, it is critical that any form of judicial process be handed over immediately to the library director and library counsel for action. No other staff member, except as specifically authorized by the director, should release library or patron information. This policy directive sets forth these facts and the steps that each member of the library staff must follow in such matters.
Oral requests by a law enforcement officer present delicate questions. Without judicial process, no officer can require cooperation with an investigation, including answers to questions or the production of records. Indeed state laws prohibit such answers or disclosures if they contain patron-specific information. However, as citizens and library employees, we have an interest in the effective functioning of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies and may wish to cooperate. To the extent that an officer requests non-confidential information ( e.g. , whether a person in a photograph has been in your library), the employee may respond. However, the sometimes subtle distinctions between confidential and non-confidential information and the ease by which questions progress to confidential matters suggest caution. If there is any doubt, library management should be consulted.
If the document is a subpoena or other form of judicial process that requires production at a future time, the officer may simply leave a copy. If a signature is requested, inform the officer that you are not authorized to accept service of process and that you will notify the library director and counsel. In all events, the person authorized to accept the subpoena should note orally and in writing that " service is accepted in official capacity only ."
Be polite and friendly. It is important that the matter not be treated as adversarial since it is the policy of the library to cooperate, and negotiation of the scope of the judicial process can often minimize the intrusion. Remember that many stories of "over-reaching" by law enforcement can be attributed at least in part to a break down in communications.
The officer may inform you that the terms of the warrant are " secret " or " sealed " and that you may not disclose any information relating to the warrant or execution. This may, in fact, be correct (if, for instance, the process is issued by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or by other courts in particularly sensitive matters), but it does not preclude notification of the library Director and counsel.
Attempt to make copies of all records seized.
Note and advise the officer if information is being seized that appears to be in excess of that authorized by the warrant.
Note and advise the officer if information is being seized that is privileged ( e.g. , patron-specific information, employee records, or attorney/client), and ask that it be so marked.
As we have seen, understanding judicial process is certainly complex. But what is the realistic extent of the impact of these law enforcement and intelligence authorities on information professionals including librarians? It is, of course, difficult to know because there are no centralized records of law enforcement orders, and FISA orders are secret. However, according to reports by the American Civil Liberties Union, FISA warrants have been served on at least 220 colleges (as of May 2002), including Cornell, Harvard, and the University of Texas. Others have been served on booksellers and libraries, and here the recipients include Queens in New York. But many, many more, perhaps thousands, have been served on ISPs and portals, including AOL and Yahoo! The University of Illinois surveyed 1,020 public libraries in January and February of 2002 and found that 85 had been asked by law enforcement officers for information about patrons. What is certain and necessary, however, is the importance of initially and immediately involving your legal counsel whenever judicial process is received.
There is also a second question relating to impact. What does this complex world of judicial orders mean for our hypothetical librarian in management terms ? We considered two of the most significant management actions: an adequate records-management plan, as well as an institutional policy regulating response. But there is more. The first is the need to build a relationship with your legal counsel. The receipt of judicial process is not the time to begin your brief to counsel. The second is your ability to negotiate with law enforcement officers concerning the scope and execution of any orders. Despite your fears, law enforcement and intelligence officials are invariably willing to discuss your ability to respond in a manner that is reasonable and does not unduly disrupt your operations. And the third is the importance of good public relations when dealing with such matters. The imbroglios resulting from statements by information professionals in the aftermath of September 11th require a continual emphasis on the legal rules we have considered, which exist to balance individual constitutional rights and effective law enforcement. When we as librarians comply with the advice of our counsel, we ensure that balance is maintained.
Lee Strickland is a Visiting Professor, College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland. He can be reached at lee.s.strickland@worldnet.att.net .
Strickland, L.S., 2003. Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise. Virginia Libraries, 49(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889
Strickland LS. Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise. Virginia Libraries. 2003;49(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889
Strickland, L. S. (2003). Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise. Virginia Libraries, 49(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889
Strickland LS, ‘Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise’ (2003) 49 Virginia Libraries DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889
Strickland, Lee S.. 2003. “Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise”. Virginia Libraries 49 (1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889
Strickland, Lee S.. “Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise”. Virginia Libraries 49, no. 1 (2003). DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889
Strickland, L. S.. “Responding to Judicial Process: A Guide to the Unexpected for Search Warrants, Subpoenas and Otherwise”. Virginia Libraries, vol. 49, no. 1, 2003. DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v49i1.889