Opinion ID: 462280
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The nature of a federal grand jury subpoena

Text: 24 While a federal 10 grand jury subpoena is issued under the authority of a court, the court has no substantive involvement in a particular subpoena unless the subpoenaed party challenges it. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Schofield I), 486 F.2d 85, 90 (3d Cir.1973) (court exercises no prior control whatsoever upon the use of subpoenas). Nor does the grand jury necessarily approve or even have knowledge of a subpoena prior to its issuance. 11 See United States v. Santucci, 674 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.1982) (U.S. Attorney may fill in blank grand jury subpoenas without actual prior grand jury authorization), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1109, 103 S.Ct. 737, 74 L.Ed.2d 959 (1983); United States v. Kleen Laundry & Cleaner, Inc., 381 F.Supp. 519, 523 (E.D.N.Y.1974) (absence of a sitting grand jury when a subpoena is issued is not disturbing if return date is set for a day when grand jurors would be in session). Rather, grand jury subpoenas are issued at the request, 12 and in the discretion of the prosecuting attorney involved in the case, 13 just as other subpoenas are issued at the request, and in the discretion of, any private litigant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. 25 The United States Attorney's Office has considerable latitude in issuing subpoenas. It has been held that the government is not required to make a preliminary showing of reasonableness or relevancy before issuing a subpoena. See United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 15-16, 93 S.Ct. 764, 772-73, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973); In re Grand Jury Investigation (McLean), 565 F.2d 318, 320-21 (5th Cir.1977); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Hergenroeder), 555 F.2d 686, 686 (9th Cir.1977). Even when a subpoena duces tecum is involved, and hence the fourth amendment may be implicated, 14 no prior authorization for the subpoena has been required. See United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 446 n. 8, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 1625 n. 8, 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976); Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 209, 66 S.Ct. 494, 505, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946). 26 Although failure to comply with a grand jury subpoena is punishable as criminal contempt, 15 Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c), one seeking to challenge a subpoena may make a motion to quash before the district court. The court must quash or modify a subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c). See generally United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346 n. 4, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619 n. 4, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). 27