Document: 340 U.S. 462 71 S.Ct. 416 95 L.Ed. 417 UNITED STATES ex rel. TOUHYv.RAGEN et al. No. 83. Argued Nov. 27—28, 1950. Decided Feb. 26, 1951. Mr. Robert B. Johnstone, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. S. Erdahl, Washington, D.C., respondent George R. mCswain. Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This proceeding brings here question right a subordinate official Department United States to refuse obey subpoena duces tecum ordering production papers in his possession. The refusal was based upon regulation1 issued by Attorney General under 5 U.S.C. § 22, U.S.C.A. 22.2 2 Petitioner, Roger Touhy, an inmate Illinois State penitentiary, instituted habeas corpus District Court Northern against warden, alleging he restrained violation Due Process Clause Federal Constitution. In course that and served McSwain, agent charge Bureau Investigation at requiring certain records which, petitioner Touhy claims, contained evidence establishing conviction brought about fraud.3 At hearing considered duty submission subpoenaed papers, made representations court opposing counsel as how far willing subordinates go papers. suggestions were not accepted. McSwain then placed witness stand ordered bring He personally declined produce these words: 'I must respectfully advise instructions me I decline them, accordance with Rule 3229.'4 3 Thereupon, judge found guilty contempt refusing referred sentenced him be committed custody or authorized representative until obeyed order discharged due process law. 4 On appeal, Appeals reversed on ground Order 3229 statute 'confers privilege unless there has been waiver such privilege.' 180 F.2d 321, page 327. whether nondisclosure waived. It quoted from Supplement this language: 'If questioned, officer employee should state material is hand can submitted determination its materiality case best public interests information disclosed. kept Attorney's office some similar place safekeeping near room. Under no circumstances name any confidential informant divulged.' 328. 6 said 'this language contemplates when called 'to disclosed." found, however, limited disclosure requested but all documents without limitation time questioned' willingness submit interests. Consequently, law required make unlimited production. thought since last would mean production, holding made. said: 'Submission could only have extent had waived purpose specific manner designated.' 7 We granted certiorari, 806, 41, determine validity 3229. Among questions duly presented petition certiorari it permissible conclusive may lawfully them response tecum. 8 find unnecessary, consider ultimate reach authority court's government possession, we understand raises power himself refusal. before trial court. true subordinate, acted General's department order. But limit our examination what record shows, wit, prohibited making superior through 3229.5 superior's action issue insofar validly withdraw release Nor are concerned effect prosecution States6 custodian they secrets7 disclose names informants.8 9 think valid properly refused agree conclusion questioned case' disclosed, did waive claimed case. 10 3229, note 1, supra, promulgated 22. That appears present form Revised Statutes 161, consolidates several older statutes relating individual departments. See, e.g., 16 Stat. 163. When one considers variety files possibilities harm unrestricted court, usefulness, indeed necessity, centralizing subpoenas will willingly challenged obvious. Hence, appropriate General, pursuant given prescribe regulations inconsistent 'the custody, use, preservation records, property appertaining to' Justice, promulgate 11 Petitioner challenges legal doctrine which makes head rather than determinator admissibility evidence. support argument Executive invade Judicial sphere, cites Wigmore Evidence (3d ed.), 2379, Marbury v. Madison, Cranch 137, 60. constitutionality exercise determinative conditions subject disadvantages Government await factual situation requires ruling.9 consistent ruled Boske Comingore, 177 459, 20 701, 44 846.10 12 collector internal revenue adjudged failing file deposition copies distiller's reports possession Treasury. needed litigation collect tax. regulation relied same general character 3229.11 After referring constitutional enactment R.S. basis, s now consideration, reached Secretary Treasury discretion voluntarily courts law, p. 469. concluded Secretary's reservation own matters lawful. 13 see distinction between this. 14 judgment affirmed. 15 Affirmed. BLACK DOUGLAS 17 CLARK took part consideration decision 18 FRANKFURTER, concurring. 19 Issues far-reaching importance deemed involved expressly left undecided. lie judicial horizon. To avoid future misunderstanding, deem important my understanding Court—what decides leaves wholly open—on basis concur it. 'This case,' holds, 'is ruled' 846. agree. Comingore decided authorized, matter administration Department, require their us belonging virtue instructing documents. conduct less upheld supra. 21 rules this, context earlier qualifications implies become important. provided: (1) collectors tax (2) obtained 'on rule Treasury'. pages 460—461, 702, also stated disclosed 'unless exist necessary decline, interest service, furnish copy.' Ibid. portion issue, considering failure produce, emphasized Government's suggestion that: '(I)f themselves used secured someone direction, who original introduction cause.' Brief Appellee, 49, 22 And strictly confined narrow epitomized concluding paragraph opinion: 'In Secretary, use business take collector, permitting other collection revenue, reserve character.' 470, 706. 23 There hint shut off demand 24 finds whether, immunity within relevant adjudication. Therefore, impliedly affected very ruling rests. Specifically, cannot afford forbid every capable being producing later contest requirement procedurally reached. joining Court's assume contrary—that process. 25 Though so reached, disclosures compelled another matter. open raise those issues testimonial compulsion rightly holds now. amenability recognized candidly face pertaining sought. hold empowered subordinates, though jurisdiction, event apply fox-hunting theory justice ought Bentham's skeleton rattle. filed May 2, 1946, Fed.Reg. 4920, reads: 'Pursuant anthority vested U.S.Code, Title 5, Section hereby ordered: 'All files, documents, offices including Attorneys, Investigation, Marshals, penal correctional institutions, control regarded confidential. No permit performance duties, except Assistant acting him. 'Whenever information, whom served, otherwise directed appear answer thereto specified in, regulation.' order, dated June 6, 1947, provides part: 'To All Attorneys: 'PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED UPON RECEIVING A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM once inform ask General. If, policy courteously consulted records. * '* into room intention comply submitting (Order 3229) explaining permitted show files. If safe-keeping 'The each regulations, department, officers clerks, distribution business, it.' addressed contention, subpoena; nor appear. See Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 45, 28 refer both supplement. Although indications alone materiality, accept basis. indication chambers changed mind. For none facts material, final adjudging based, above indicated, instructed Cf. Andolschek al., Cir., 142 503. 2378. 2374. Rescue Army Municipal Los Angeles, 331 549, 67 1409, 91 1666. relatively recent problem underlying governmental evidence, compare Duncan Cammell, Laird & Co., (1942) App.Cas. 624, Robinson South Australia, (1931) 704. generally followed. Ex parte Sackett, 74 922; re Valecia Condensed Milk 240 F. 310; Harwood McMurtry, F.Supp. 572; Stegall Thurman, 175 813; Walling Comet Carriers, Inc., F.R.D. 442, 443. following excerpts similarity: "Whenever shall for, therefrom department. cases where desired behalf parties suit, other, furnished requesting same. Whenever carefully prepare copy document containing send office, whereupon transmitted request authentication, seal transmission calling it, copy." 461,

Category: 4