MO: Administrative subpoena to Planned Parenthood was not unreasonable

The AG’s civil investigative demand to Planned Parenthood wasn’t unreasonable as a subpoena. “To comply with the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement, a CID, which is an administrative subpoena, must (1) comply with the statute authorizing it, (2) seek information that is relevant to the administrative inquiry, and (3) not be too indefinite or too broad. Charter Commc’ns, 461 S.W.3d at 859.” This meets those requirements. Private information is not sought. Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State ex rel. Bailey, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 238 (Apr. 15, 2025).

“At least four sets of facts support the reasonableness of the suspicion that the two men found in the backyard were two participants in the robbery.” Therefore, the encounter was reasonable. Parker v. United States, 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 76 (Apr. 17, 2025).*

The officer opened defendant’s car door to seize a glass pipe. It was not an unreasonable trespass under Jones and Class. United States v. Rogers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73414 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 17, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters, Trespass. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.