(a) A search for documentary materials necessarily involves intrusions into personal privacy. First, the privacy of a person's home or office may be breached. Second, the execution of such a search may require examination of private papers within the scope of the search warrant, but not themselves subject to seizure. In addition, where such a search involves intrusions into professional, confidential relationships, the privacy interests of other persons are also implicated.
(b) It is the responsibility of federal officers and employees to recognize the importance of these personal privacy interests, and to protect against unnecessary intrusions. Generally, when documentary materials are held by a disinterested third party, a subpoena, administrative summons, or governmental request will be an effective alternative to the use of a search warrant and will be considerably less intrusive. The purpose of the guidelines set forth in this part is to assure that federal officers and employees do not use search and seizure to obtain documentary materials in the possession of disinterested third parties unless reliance on alternative means would substantially jeopardize their availability (e.g., by creating a risk of destruction, etc.) or usefulness (e.g., by detrimentally delaying the investigation, destroying a chain of custody, etc.). Therefore, the guidelines in this part establish certain criteria and procedural requirements which must be met before a search warrant may be used to obtain documentary materials held by disinterested third parties. The guidelines in this part are not intended to inhibit the use of less intrusive means of obtaining documentary materials such as the use of a subpoena, summons, or formal or informal request.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1983–2008 · leading case:
People v. Nash, 341 N.W.2d 439 (Mich. 1983).
People v. Nash, 341 N.W.2d 439 (Mich. 1983).
· cites it 2× “See, also, 42 USC 2000aa-11(a) and 28 CFR 59.1 et seq.; Or Rev Stat, § 9.695.”
United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Further, as previously noted, there were no substantiated risks justifying the use of a warrant to obtain the documentary evidence from a third party under 28 C.F.R. § 59.1 (b). In addition, it is worth noting that the May 6 subpoenas requested much of the same information…”
Klitzman, Klitzman & Gallagher v. Robert J. Krut, Vernon Holmes, W. Hunt Dumont, Michael Milner, 744 F.2d 955 (3rd Cir. 1984).
“Additionally, the inspectors, and especially the United States Attorney’s Office, also should have been aware of, and followed, the “Guidelines on Methods of Obtaining Documentary Materials Held by Third Parties,” 28 C.F.R. §§ 59.1 -.6 (1983), issued by the Department of Justice…”
Klitzman, Klitzman & Gallagher v. Krut, 591 F. Supp. 258 (D.N.J. 1984).
· cites it 2× “See also 28 C.F.R. §§ 59.1 (a), 59.4(b)(1). Furthermore, to the extent that the search and seizure here at issue included within its scope materials emanating from confidential relationships between lawyers not suspected of criminal activity and their clients, it was covered by…”
Gordon v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
“2d 734 ]; and see 28 C.F.R. § 59.1 et seq. (1996) [the federal guidelines for obtaining documentary materials held by third parties, including but not limited to lawyers, physicians and clergymen].”
United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Further, as previously noted, there were no substantiated risks justifying the use of a warrant to obtain the documentary evidence from a third party under 28 C.F.R. § 59.1 (b). 19898 UNITED STATES v.”
Doe v. DiGenova, 642 F. Supp. 624 (D.D.C. 1986).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 59.1 (b) (“The guidelines in this part are not intended to inhibit use of less intrusive means of obtaining documentary materials, such as the use of a subpoena____”).”
United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008).
“Further, as previously noted, there were no substantiated risks justifying the use of a warrant to obtain the documentary evidence from a third party under 28 C.F.R. § 59.1 (b). In addition, it is worth noting that the May 6 subpoenas requested much of the same information…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.