{"id":7799,"date":"2012-10-06T10:47:36","date_gmt":"2012-10-06T10:47:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-10-06T10:47:36","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7799","title":{"rendered":"AR: Pros’r subpoena appeared reasonable; Fourth Amendment argument not preserved"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant changed his argument on appeal that the prosecutor subpoenaed text messages in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On what the court had, the subpoena appeared reasonable under Walling. Gulley v. State<\/a>, 2012 Ark. 368, 2012 Ark. LEXIS 393 (October 4, 2012)*:<\/p>\n

As the State correctly points out, Gulley has not alleged that the prosecutor in this case abused his subpoena power. Rather, Gulley simply argues that he had an expectation of privacy in his text messages and that the procurement of his text messages without a search warrant violated his right to be secure in his communications. Notably, however, “the search and seizure clause of the [Fourth] Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel, through a subpoena duces tecum, the production, upon a trial in court, of documentary evidence.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 73 (1906). In regard to pretrial subpoenas duces tecum, the Fourth Amendment, “if applicable, at the most guards against abuse only by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be ‘particularly described,’ …. The gist of the protection is in the requirement … that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.” Okla. Press Publ’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 208 (1946). The Supreme Court of the United States has specifically required only that “the subpoena be sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome.” See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 544 (1967); Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408, 415 (1984); see also Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F. Supp. 248 (E.D. Ark. 1968) (holding that statute authorizing prosecutor’s subpoena power was constitutional and limited only by reasonableness as articulated in Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling).<\/p>\n

In the instant case, Gulley made no argument before the trial court-and makes no argument on appeal-that the prosecutor abused the subpoena power. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7799\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}