New law review article: “‘Reasonable’ Grand Jury Subpoenas: Asking for Information in the Age of Big Data”

Joshua Gruenspecht, “Reasonable” Grand Jury Subpoenas: Asking for Information in the Age of Big Data, 24 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 543 (2011):

Grand juries use the subpoena duces tecum to request and collect evidence held by a party or witness. In so doing, they serve as an investigative arm of the prosecution. Though subpoenas, unlike warrants, can be issued with less than probable cause, they receive less attention from commentators because subpoenas do not result in the state’s exercise of its powers to search a suspect’s property without his consent. Instead, they are used to request documents and information that the prosecution suspects will be material in the case. The advent of mass digital storage, however, has significantly increased the chances that records of any given document exist and is increasingly unifying the locations in which those records can be found. Both in the case of digital data stores held by users themselves and in the case of data stored by users with third parties, the extent of the subpoena power increasingly rests on the question of how specific a prosecutorial request for documents must be.

Faced with increasing amounts of stored digital information, courts and commentators have attempted to apply old rules in a new context. The knotty Fourth Amendment questions that arise from the production of electronically stored information through warrants have received particular scrutiny. Civil liberties groups have argued that the Constitution demands a probable cause standard for various kinds of digital searches by law enforcement, while public interest and industry coalitions have pushed for legislation to address the issue. While standards for the use of warrants for the collection of evidence have been the subject of judicial conflict, scholarly debate, and public outcry, standards for the use of the grand jury subpoena have slipped by relatively unnoticed. Given the potential scope of digital subpoenas, this is surprising. As one commentator has noted, “[w]hereas the subpoena power is fairly narrow in traditional cases, in computer crime cases it is incredibly broad.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.