Judge Calls Out Prosecutors For Bogus Subpoena Gag Orders
from the it's-a-request,-not-a-demand dept
At long last, it appears some prosecutors will no longer be putting BS gag orders on their subpoenas. Eastern District of New York judge Raymond J. Dearie has expressed his displeasure with the language found on nearly all subpoenas issued by the Brooklyn, New York US Attorney's Office.
With the exception of National Security Letters, recipients of subpoenas are free to inform the targets of the documents as well as discuss them publicly. (The exception is financial institutions served in grand jury investigations related to fraud or drug trafficking.) But that doesn't stop prosecutors and investigators from adding misleading statements to their subpoenas. They can only ask recipients not to disclose anything. They can't demand it. That's called "prior restraint" -- something the government should be taking great care to avoid. But some still make it appear as though the recipient has no choice but to comply and shut up.
As was covered here earlier, Reason's website received a subpoena for information on its commenters. Included with the subpoena was a request that Reason not talk about it. Reason's attorneys understood it was only a request and went ahead and informed the commenters targeted by it. Most recipients won't do this because prosecutors either utilize deliberately vague wording (making it seem more like a demand than a request) or verbally suggest any disclosure could result in criminal charges for the recipient.
The latter tacic was deployed in the Reason case. When it informed the US Attorney's office that it would be making the subpoena public, AUSA Niketh Velamoor suggested the site was "coming close" to "interfering with a grand jury investigation."
Judge Dearie has gone after the US Attorney's Office in Brooklyn for basically doing the same thing. A subpoena related to a cocaine smuggling investigation issued to a law office contained the following words:
You are hereby directed not to disclose the existence of this subpoena, as it may impede an ongoing investigation.No subtlety there. This is an order -- and an illegal one at that. The battle over that phrase resulted in the discovery of widespread abuse by the prosecutor's office.
The Gigliotti case suggests that this was not the first time that prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York made such a demand. “Policy was violated multiple times here,” Judge Raymond J. Dearie wrote last week in a ruling, “and it is apparent that such violations are not isolated to this case.”The lawyers challenging the wording called it "blatantly improper." The judge called it a "violation." The office issuing the bogus wording called it something else: "inadvertent." (It agreed it was "improper," but refused to take responsibility for crafting the words it crafted.)
Prosecutors said they will fix this going forward, although they were vague enough on details that Dearie had more harsh words for them.
In a decision last week, Judge Dearie called the government’s response “disappointing” and “glib,” saying prosecutors did not outline the scope of the problem or how they would address it.Most likely, the prosecutors will continue to issue verbiage that strongly suggests recipients keep their mouths shut. They're apparently going to put this wording on a separate piece of paper (rather than on the subpoena itself) from now on, as if that somehow changes the implicit severity of the misleading language.
'“Now that the government is unambiguously on notice of this problem and the need to correct it, continued violations could well warrant severe remedies,” Judge Dearie wrote.
“The government proceeds at its peril.”
While it is good to see the office called out for its bogus demands, little will change if it can regularly rely on the ignorance of subpoena recipients to maintain the secrecy it can't actually demand. The more foreboding the wording sounds, the more likely it is that these "requests" will be complied with. The most honest solution would be to remove the wording entirely, unless nondisclosure is stipulated by statute.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brooklyn attorney's office, gag order, raymond dearie, subpoena
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the case has been resolved, generally yes.
If there is still an ongoing investigation, possibly. No in some states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
5 U.S.C. § 551 - Definitions
5 U.S. Code § 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings(Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn’t “Grand Jury Investigation” An Oxymoron?
I can’t think of any country in the world, other than the US, which feels the need for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn’t “Grand Jury Investigation” An Oxymoron?
Oh wait... they stopped in early 1800's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How they will correct it
Warning: impeding an investigation by disclosure of the existence of this subpoena may result in a $250,000 fine, 20 years imprisonment, or both.
See? No "order" there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, no it doesn't
“The government proceeds at its peril.”
Tough sounding words, but ultimately empty. What's the judge going to do when they violate the rules again, give them an even sterner warning not to do it again in the future? Perhaps with the threat of a really harsh look and some finger wagging?
Until those sending out the gag orders face actual personal penalties for their actions, they have no reason to stop, and as a result won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, no it doesn't
I think that was the hint that in the future they might. In this sort of situation, where they're on notice, they don't have qualified immunity anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, no it doesn't
Can all other judges in the Eastern District o' NY just keep letting the bad subpoenas slide and ignore handing out the 'severe remedies' (or even pusillanimous remedies) that Dearie's threatened?
Do Dearie or other judges ever look at the subpoenas proactively, or only at the request of an attorney? IOW, does someone have to have a lawyer who's aware of both the wording violations and Dearie's displeasure with them before anything could possibly happen?
Long ago, reading about immunities given to people in the various parts of the legal system, I could swear I read that prosecutors can't be held personally criminally responsible for breaking the law in the course of any of their normal duties. I think the example was that even egregious lying during a trial was OK (case could be ruined, but no criminal charges brought against prosecutor), while tampering with evidence could land the prosecutor in jail since evidence related activities are part of a LEO's duties, not a prosecutor's. If so, what sort of penalties could Dearie hand out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, no it doesn't
• 18 U.S.C. § 401 - Power of court
• FRCrimP Rule 42 Criminal Contempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, no it doesn't
Now I get to go read Kalina v. Fletcher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no it doesn't
United States v Nixon (1974)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no it doesn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no it doesn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]