Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Grand Jury Matter Grand Jury Matter 84-246

March 29, 1985

IN RE: GRAND JURY MATTER: IN RE: GRAND JURY MATTER 84-246


On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, D.C. No. GJ 84-246-3, J. William Ditter, Jr.

Author: Garth

BEFORE: HUNTER and GARTH, Circuit Judges and GERRY, District Judge*fn*

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

GARTH, Circuit Judge :

Appellants, targets of a federal grand jury investigation into corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department, take this appeal from a partial denial of their motion to quash a subpoena requiring the Police Department to produce their personnel files. The police officers were allowed to intervene. The district court stayed enforcement of the subpoena pending this appeal. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that the files are relevant to the investigation, and finding no cognizable fifth amendment issue preserved for review, we affirm the order of the district court.

I.

The subpoena in question demanded production of the full and complete personnel files of twenty-six police officers under investigation by the grand jury. According to the United States Attorney's Schofield affidavit (see In Re Schofield, 507 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1975), the grand jury investigation concerned "potential violations of federal law, including Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 1951, relating to allegations of corruption within the Philadelphia Police Department." This affidavit further attests that "The materials sought by the subpoena are (1) relevant to the Grand Jury's investigation; (2) properly within the Grand Jury's jurisdiction; and (3) not sought primarily for any other purpose."

During a hearing held by the district court on the police officers' motion to quash, Officer Herron testified that he did not know the contents of his file, and he opposed disclosure of his personnel file for fear of damage to his employment and to his reputation. Officer Herron did not state that he personally was the source of information in his, or any other file, nor did he testify that he had ever been forced to divulge information for his personnel file under threat of job loss.

The district court denied in part the motion to quash, finding personnel files relevant to show police officers' duty assignments and associations on the force, which might aid an investigation of conspiracy. The district court limited enforcement of the subpoena to information dated subsequent to August 1, 1974, finding the unlimited time scope of the subpoena to be unreasonable and irrelevant to a current prosecution.

II.

In this circuit, a district court's order that a subpoena be enforced will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Smith, 579 F.2d 836 (3d Cir. 1978); In re Schofield, 507 F.2d 963 (3d Cir.) cert denied, 421 U.S. 1015 (1975). Schofield required that in all cases the U.S. Attorney must submit an affidavit, upon challenge to the subpoena, stating the grounds of the investigation and showing that each item sought is "(1) relevant to the investigation, (2) properly within the grand jury's jurisdiction, and (3) not sought primarily for another purpose." 507 F.2d at 966. Once such an affidavit is submitted, any further inquiry into the validity of the subpoena is left to the district court's discretion. Id. at 838. As stated in Smith, supra,

The sufficiency of the government's showing is committed to the sound discretion of the district court whose decision will not be disturbed unless this court finds that the district court's judgment amounted to an abuse of discretion.

579 F.2d at 838.

The Schofield court also set out a broad standard of relevance under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.