Prosecutors Say Subpoenas Will Be Used For Serious Crimes Against Children, Use Them For Everything Else
from the flexible-definitions-and-malleable-purposes dept
It's always been true: if you give a government agency increased powers for a limited purpose, the limitations and the purpose will soon be shrugged off. The ACLU of Massachusetts is trying to get some prosecutorial power reeled back in, thanks to administrative subpoena mission creep.
When prosecutors first pushed for the power to seize telephone and Internet records themselves, bypassing the need for a judge to approve a warrant, they argued the power was necessary to help them quickly track down missing children and sexual predators.
But records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union show prosecutors have used that significant subpoena power hundreds of times a year in routine investigations related to larceny, check fraud, assault, and other common crimes.
[...]
In one case cited by the [ACLU], Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley issued a subpoena in 2011 to find the subscriber information for several Twitter handles and for anyone who used the hashtag #BostonPD after the police removed an Occupy Boston encampment in Dewey Square.
It is the same here as it is with everything else. Stingrays were supposed to be counterterrorism devices, what with them being repurposed war gear. But then it was homicides. Then drug dealers. Then pretty much anyone cops wanted to locate, even if all they'd done was steal $60 of fast food.
Likewise, National Security Letters. The clue is in the name. Maybe they're only being used for national security purposes, but if so, America is under constant threat from prolific terrorists. The FBI issues thousands of these a year. And we know very little about the underlying crimes, thanks to indefinite gag orders and loads of government court filings still under seal.
The subpoenas discussed here are also administrative. This means prosecutors write the paperwork themselves and run it past no one before serving it to internet service providers and phone companies. They also do this thousands of times a year.
Four other district attorneys disclosed a limited amount of data. But Healey and Middlesex District Attorney Marian T. Ryan turned over a large trove of information that revealed how frequently the subpoenas are used. Ryan’s office said it issued more than 2,400 over the last three years, while Healey’s office said it sent more than 1,200 during the period.
[...]
District Attorney Michael O’Keefe of the Cape and Islands, who issued 450 subpoenas over the last three years...
All for serious crimes, right?
Ryan’s office said the subpoenas were used to investigate crimes ranging from annoying calls and destruction of property to stabbing and rape of a child.
This isn't just irritating the ACLU. It's also irritating legislators who felt they were misled by prosecutors during the push for expanded power. Senator Cynthia Creem says prosecutors said it would be used to tackle crimes against children. Instead, the subpoenas are being used to handle almost any criminal activity. In response to this prosecutorial abuse of a legislated privilege, Creem is now attempting a claw-back.
Creem has filed a bill that would limit the use of administrative subpoenas to certain crimes against children and require prosecutors to report how many subpoenas they issue, the types of investigations involved, and whether they led to charges and convictions. The bill would also require prosecutors, at the close of an investigation, to inform the customers whose telephone and internet logs were seized.
Undoubtedly, this bill will face stiff resistance from prosecutors who've become accustomed to getting everything they want exactly when they want it. It's pretty difficult to convince investigators they don't need this, even though they apparently had no problem closing investigations prior to the law's passage in 2008.
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: 4th amendment, administrative subpoena, for the children, investigations, privacy, subpoenas, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"...limit the use of administrative subpoenas to certain crimes against children..."
But... think of the children!
(Oh, wait...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What they need to take to heart is this. They have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sarcasm
Behavior. Something Must Be Done! Or our children will suffer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's partially her fault for writing and/or voting for an overbroad law. They should have written that limit into the law from the beginning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just like Amber Alterts
It turns out that there are vanishingly few stranger abductions, and the system's budget couldn't be justified. So they gradually broadened it. Today it's used almost exclusively in custody disputes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Senator Cynthia Creem says prosecutors said it would be used to tackle crimes against children.
I mean, claiming that it will be used for some purpose is not the same as claiming that it will not be used for any other purpose.
And as this senator used to be an attorney I have no sympathy for her supposed plight. She, more than most, should have understood exactly how important diction is, and how it can be used in rhetoric to mischaracterize and mislead. She knew exactly what she was doing when she granted this authority, and doesn't get to pretend ignorance now to win a few points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We have ceded too much already and the writing is on the wall - tyrannical dystopia lies straight ahead (or fantasy, depending upon your world view).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Help!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security
Citizenship & Immigration Services
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
Management Directorate
National Protection and Programs Directorate
Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
Office of General Counsel
Office of Health Affairs
Office of Intelligence & Analysis
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of Operations Coordination
Office of Partnership & Engagement
Office of Policy
Office of Public Affairs
Office of the Inspector General
Privacy Office
Science & Technology Directorate
Transportation Security Administration
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
United States Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
United States Secret Service
THATS THE SHORT LIST..VERY SHORT..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A good rule of thumb
When a government entity wants more power, fight it tooth and nail. Once you give that power up, you will never get it back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The problem is that people have stockholms syndrome when it comes to government. They know they are getting the short enf of the stick but they think that government is the only institution that will save them from having an even shorter stick. So they just let government write laws and regulations without check in hopes that someone somewhere will magically make it all right in the face of all the businesses lobbying congress for regulations that let them turn consumers into captive economic demographics. Or just straight up criminals and prisoners per the private prison industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Help!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about a review of what has already happened
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what is law
In this instance we hear very soft complaints about government prosecutors misusing "administrative subpoenas" -- when in fact the very existence of any "administrative law" is outrageously non-Constitutional
Every lawyer in America should be marching in the streets in protest over the abomination of administrative-law ... but none of them see it as a problem. That says a lot about the American legal profession.
{insert your favorite lawyer joke HERE|
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"And that gleaming spire there on the horizon... that's the number of "Patriot Act Warrant Requests", I guess drugs are terrorists too.... It is ok give us unlimited powers with no oversight or responsibility... we won't misuse it... Trust Us. "
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/02534215846/wasnt-patriot-act-supposed-to-be-about-stopp ing-terrorism.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They just let government do stuff ... like secret stuff 'n stuff. You claim the people should stop this, exactly what are you suggesting?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Help!
I thought the GOP was for small government but every time they do anything it ends up making the government bigger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Corporations everywhere are slurping up every data tidbit they can on everyone out there even if you do not have a business relationship with them. And some people claim that if you do not have an account with them, they create one for you so that they can track you. So, are you dumping the credit cards also? How about wearing a mask? Does such behavior make you subject to scrutiny?
[ link to this | view in thread ]