U.S. Code » Title 21 » Chapter CHAPTER 13— DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT › Part Part E— Administrative and Enforcement Provisions

21 U.S.C. § 876

Subpenas

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Authorization of use by Attorney General

In any investigation relating to his functions under this subchapter with respect to controlled substances, listed chemicals, tableting machines, or encapsulating machines, the Attorney General may subpena witnesses, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and require the production of any records (including books, papers, documents, and other tangible things which constitute or contain evidence) which the Attorney General finds relevant or material to the investigation. The attendance of witnesses and the production of records may be required from any place in any State or in any territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at any designated place of hearing; except that a witness shall not be required to appear at any hearing more than 500 miles distant from the place where he was served with a subpena. Witnesses summoned under this section shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States.

(b) Service

A subpena issued under this section may be served by any person designated in the subpena to serve it. Service upon a natural person may be made by personal delivery of the subpena to him. Service may be made upon a domestic or foreign corporation or upon a partnership or other unincorporated association which is subject to suit under a common name, by delivering the subpena to an officer, to a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. The affidavit of the person serving the subpena entered on a true copy thereof by the person serving it shall be proof of service.

(c) Enforcement

In the case of contumacy by or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person, the Attorney General may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the investigation is carried on or of which the subpenaed person is an inhabitant, or in which he carries on business or may be found, to compel compliance with the subpena. The court may issue an order requiring the subpenaed person to appear before the Attorney General to produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in any judicial district in which such person may be found.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 506, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1272; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6058, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4319.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–690 inserted “listed chemicals, tableting machines, or encapsulating machines,” after “with respect to controlled substances,”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–690 effective 120 days after Nov. 18, 1988, see section 6061 of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as a note under section 802 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Prog. v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 860 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Prog. v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 860 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “We also hold that the federal administrative subpoena statute, 21 U.S.C. § 876 , preempts Oregon’s statutory court order requirement, Or.”
State v. Clark, 752 S.E.2d 907 (W. Va. 2013). · cites it 8× “This Court issued a Memorandum Decision on November 16, 2012, holding Clark’s appeal in abeyance to permit the circuit court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and enter an appropriate order on the issues of 1) whether the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) properly issued…”
United States v. Apodaca, 251 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 5× “Notwithstanding DOC’s General Counsel’s suggestion that government counsel resolve the discovery dispute with the Court, on February 9, 2017, DOC received two administrative subpoenas from the FBI, issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 876 , requesting DOC’s recorded calls for each…”
United States v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 516 F. Supp. 225 (D. Wyo. 1981). · cites it 14× “On March 10, 1981, Petitioner issued a subpoena under 21 U.S.C. § 876 (a) directing Respondent to produce the suspect’s toll records for the period of June 1, 1980, *228 through January 31, 1981.”
United States v. Joseph Zadeh, 820 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “In February 2014, the government petitioned the federal district court for enforcement under 21 U.S.C. § 876 (c), which permits the Attorney General to “invoke the aid” of the federal courts to “issue an order” enforcing a subpoena “[i]n the case of contumacy.”
United States v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass'n, 689 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “As part of its investigation, the DEA served an administrative subpoena on Golden Valley pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 876 (a). The subpoena ordered Golden Valley to provide company records pertaining to electricity consumption at three specified customer addresses.”
United States v. Hossbach, 518 F. Supp. 759 (E.D. Pa. 1980). · cites it 7× “In summary they involve (1) the right of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to obtain evidence in furtherance of a purely criminal investigation through the use of “administrative subpoenas” issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 876 ; (2) the effect of both formal and informal immunity…”
US Dep't of Just. v. Ricco Jonas, 24 F.4th 718 (1st Cir. 2022). · cites it 19× “Respondent-appellant Michelle Ricco Jonas ("Ricco Jonas"), the Program Manager for New Hampshire's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (the "PDMP"), appeals from a district court judgment ordering compliance with an administrative subpoena issued to her by the United States…”
United States v. Hasston, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 4× “See 21 U.S.C. § 876 . Mr. Patterson provided further detail concerning the metadata stored in the database: This metadata related to international telephone calls originating in the United States and calling [REDACTED] designated foreign countries, one of which was Iran, that…”
United States v. Moffett, 84 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “Defendant asserts that the district court erred (1) in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an administrative subpoena issued under 21 U.S.C. § 876 ; and (2) in allowing the government to take inconsistent positions by first arguing that defendant had…”
United States v. Gloria Taylor, 54 F.4th 795 (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “As part of its investigation into Appellant, the DEA served several administrative subpoenas pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 876 1 and the SCA on the telecommunications company Sprint Corporation (“Sprint”).”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015). “A recently disclosed, now discontinued program under which the Drug Enforcement Administration utilized administrative subpoenas obtained pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 876 to collect and maintain a telephone metadata database may have demanded an interpretation approaching the breadth…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
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.