Opinion ID: 556527
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Validity of the Subpoenas

Text: 34 We review the district court's factual determinations under the clearly erroneous rule, and review its decision to quash the grand jury subpoenas for abuse of discretion. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 803 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir.1986). 35 The grand jury has broad powers of investigation. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct. 613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (grand jury has been accorded wide latitude to inquire into violations of criminal law). As the Supreme Court has explained: 36 It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime. 37 Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 471, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919). Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a grand jury may issue a subpoena. The rule imposes no limitations on the purposes for which it is issued, but provides only that the subpoena may be quashed if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c). This court has rejected arguments that an affidavit of need or relevance should be required before a grand jury subpoena is issued. In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 721 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir.1983). 38 Doe Three merges his arguments against the validity of the warrants and the subpoenas. He contends that the subpoenas are the functional equivalents of the search warrants and should be treated as such. He points repeatedly to the fact that the subpoenas were served at the same time as the search warrants and that the federal agents attempted to enforce the subpoenas through immediate seizure of the documents. 39 Doe Three offers no legal authority to support this novel proposition. Subpoenas are not search warrants. They involve different levels of intrusion on a person's privacy. A search warrant allows the officer to enter the person's premises, and to examine for himself the person's belongings. The officer, pursuant to the warrant, determines what is seized. Moreover, if evidence or contraband of any sort is in plain sight, the officer may seize it, even if it is not listed in the warrant. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1153, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). The person to be searched has no lawful way to prevent execution of the warrant. 40 Service of a forthwith subpoena does not authorize an entry into a private residence. Furthermore, the person served determines whether he will surrender the items identified in the subpoena or challenge the validity of the subpoena prior to compliance. 41 These differences are not eliminated by the fact that the search warrants and subpoenas were delivered at the same time. Moreover, in the instant matter the federal agents did not enforce the subpoenas on the date the search warrants were executed. In fact, the law firm was eventually given nearly a month to comply with the subpoenas. 42 Doe Three has not argued that compliance with the subpoenas is oppressive. Indeed, Doe Four has already complied with them. Instead, Doe Three argues that the lack of relevance, breadth, and circumstances in which the subpoenas were issued were such that they should be quashed. But he has failed to show that the papers that are described in the subpoenas are outside the scope of a legitimate investigation by the grand jury. He has failed to show that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The district court did not abuse its discretion in partially denying Doe Three's motions to quash the subpoenas. 43