Opinion ID: 1705345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Authority to Issue CID Under Section 714.16.

Text: Iowa's Consumer Fraud Act is found in Iowa Code section 714.16. Subsection (3) of this section specifies various actions the Attorney General may take when he believes that a person may be engaging in a practice prohibited by the Act. See Iowa Code § 714.16(3). Such actions include requiring the suspected violator to give a statement or report under oath upon forms prescribed by the Attorney General concerning that person's sale or advertisement of merchandise; examining under oath any person concerning such sale or advertisement; examining merchandise, records, documents, accounts, or papers; and pursuant to court order, impounding any record, book, document, account, paper, or sample of merchandise that is produced in accordance with this section. Id. In addition to these powers, the statute further provides: To accomplish the objectives and to carry out the duties prescribed by this section, the attorney general, in addition to other powers conferred on the attorney general by this section, may issue subpoenas to any person, administer an oath or affirmation to any person, conduct hearings in aid of any investigation or inquiry, prescribe such forms and promulgate such rules as may be necessary, which rules shall have the force of law. Id. § 714.16(4)(a) (emphasis added). To aid in the enforcement of these investigative powers, the legislature provided for court assistance in the event a person fails or refuses to file a statement or report, or obey any subpoena issued by the attorney general. Id. § 714.16(6). The defendants claim this statute does not authorize the Attorney General to issue a civil investigative demand because nowhere in section 714.16 is there any mention of civil investigative demands. They complain the CIDs are essentially civil interrogatories and requests for production that are not authorized by the legislature. We think the defendants' reading of the statute is too narrow and restrictive. While it is true section 714.16 does not use the term civil investigative demand, the Attorney General is given express authority to issue subpoenas. See id. § 714.16(4)( a ). A civil investigative demand . . . is essentially an administrative subpoena. Office of Attorney Gen. v. M.J.D. (In re Investigation of Highway Constr. Indus.), 396 N.W.2d 757, 758 (S.D. 1986). In addition, the following provision in essence gives the Attorney General statutory authority to require the subject of an investigation to answer questions akin to civil interrogatories: [T]he attorney general may: a. Require such person to file on such forms as the attorney general may prescribe a statement or report in writing under oath or otherwise, as to all the facts and circumstances concerning the sale or advertisement of merchandise by such person, and such other data and information as the attorney general may deem necessary. Iowa Code § 714.16(3)( a ). The defendants do not dispute that the questions propounded in the CIDs seek information related to the defendants' sale or advertisement of cigarettes in Iowa. Finally, we also reject the defendants' contention that the Attorney General's investigative powers under the Consumer Fraud Act do not include the authority to request the production of documents. As noted above, section 714.16(3) authorizes the Attorney General to [e]xamine any . . . record, book, document, account or paper and to obtain a court order impounding any record, book, document, account, [or] paper . . . that is produced in accordance with this section. Id. § 714.16(3)( c ), ( d ) (emphasis added). Clearly, the legislature contemplated that the Attorney General's examination of documents would necessitate the production of those documents. Moreover, courts are reluctant to interfere with an agency's use of its subpoena power other than to preserve due process rights. See Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines/Personnel Dep't, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981). In conclusion, to adopt the defendants' argument would place form over substance, a result inconsistent with the broad interpretation historically given to the investigative powers of administrative agencies in general and to the investigative powers authorized by the Consumer Fraud Act in particular. See State ex rel. Miller v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 732, 737, 738 (Iowa 2001) (describing investigative powers under the Consumer Fraud Act as broad and plenary); Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 313 N.W.2d at 495 (Administrative agencies are normally invested with broad investigative powers to enable them to effectively carry out their legislative mandates.). Consequently, we conclude the Attorney General had the authority to issue civil investigative demands that included interrogatories and requests for production. Because we have concluded that the CIDs issued by the Attorney General were within his statutory authority, we need not address the defendants' contention that the CIDs constituted an unauthorized search that violated their Fourth Amendment rights.