Opinion ID: 1253359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We must first determine our jurisdiction to consider this case. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(6) authorizes the issuance of a county attorney's subpoena and subpoena duces tecum in an investigation by the county attorney of a criminal offense. However, there is no specific rule or statute permitting a subpoenaed witness who moves to quash the subpoena or subpoena duces tecum to appeal the denial of the motion by the district court when the witness is not a defendant in the criminal proceeding. In Bousman v. Iowa District Court, 630 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2001), decided on this date, we found this same lack of a procedural mechanism for appeal by a person subject to a nontestimonial identification order under Iowa Code chapter 810 limited judicial review to a petition for writ of certiorari under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 301. See Bousman, 630 N.W.2d at 794. Not only is this form of review available under our rules prior to the final disposition of the case, it is less disruptive to the ongoing criminal investigation by the county attorney than an appeal, and gives us more control over our dockets. See McKeever v. Gerard, 368 N.W.2d 116, 118 (Iowa 1985) (available regardless of the finality of a judgment). It is the proper mechanism for review of an order by the district court denying a motion to quash a county attorney's subpoena. Thus, when an appeal should have been filed as a certiorari proceeding, we are authorized to proceed to consider the appeal as though it was properly filed as a certiorari action. Iowa R.App.P. 304. We recognize that a writ of certiorari is proper when the plaintiff alleges the district court exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally. State Pub. Defender v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 594 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Iowa 1999). An illegal act exists when the challenged court order lacks substantial support in the evidence or is not supported by the proper rule of law. Allen v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 582 N.W.2d 506, 508 (Iowa 1998). In Bousman, we found that certiorari was proper because the other avenues for appellate review required predicate litigation. Without certiorari, Bousman could obtain judicial review only if criminal charges were ultimately filed against him or if he appealed from a contempt order for failing to comply with the nontestimonial identification order. We also observed that Bousman challenged the order on legal and constitutional grounds. Similarly, Pattison has no practical means of judicial review without certiorari. It is not the subject of a potential criminal action. Thus, judicial review would be limited to an appeal from a contempt citation. See Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 18 n. 11, 113 S.Ct. 447, 452 n. 11, 121 L.Ed.2d 313, 322-23 n. 11 (1992); Allen, 582 N.W.2d at 508-09. Yet, an appeal of a discovery order through a challenge to a contempt proceeding is impractical for a litigant who is a disinterested third party to the underlying dispute and lacks a sufficient stake in the outcome of the underlying case to risk contempt. See Church of Scientology of California, 506 U.S. at 18 n. 11, 113 S.Ct. at 452 n. 11, 121 L.Ed.2d at 322-23 n. 11; In re Pruett, 133 F.3d 275, 281 n. 10 (4th Cir.1997). Thus, potentially harsh and unfair results await a disinterested third party who challenges a discovery order through a contempt proceeding. This type of risky review for a disinterested third party supports review by writ of original certiorari. See Shannon by Shannon v. Hansen, 469 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1991) (review of refusal to grant protective order to state patrol was by certiorari because state patrol was not a party to the underlying action). Additionally, the grounds for review raised by Pattison are framed in terms of a Fourth Amendment challenge. This also makes the case particularly appropriate for certiorari review. See McKeever, 368 N.W.2d at 118. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and proceed to consider the merits of the challenge to the subpoena duces tecum. Our review is at law. See Matlock v. Weets, 531 N.W.2d 118, 121 (Iowa 1995). A district court is given discretion to refuse to quash a subpoena. Exotica Botanicals, Inc. v. Terra Int'l, Inc., 612 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Iowa 2000). Reversal is warranted only if the grounds relied on by the district court are clearly unreasonable or untenable. Id.