[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 15. Investigations and Inquiries]
[C. Procedure; Hearings]
[Â§ 11. Fourth Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2366-2367]
 
                               CHAPTER 15
 
                      Investigations and Inquiries
 
                         C. PROCEDURE; HEARINGS
 
Sec. 11. --Fourth Amendment

    The fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and 
seizures applies to congressional investigations.(19) A 
court of appeals made an unequivocal statement to this effect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Watkins v United States, 354 U.S. 178, 188 (1957). See also 
        Moreland, Allen B., Congressional Investigations and Private 
        Persons, 40 So. Cal. L. Rev. 189, 225-230 (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Fourth Amendment exempts no branch of the federal 
    government from the commandment that ``The right of the people to 
    be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 
    unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . .'' 
    This constitutional guaranty applies with equal force to executive, 
    legislative and judicial action. Courts and committees rightly 
    require answers to questions. But neither may exert this power to 
    extort assent in invasions of homes and to seizures of private 
    papers. Assent so extorted is no substitute for lawful 
    process.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Nelson v United States, 208 F2d 505 (D.C. Cir. 1953), cert. denied 
        346 U.S. 827 (1953).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supreme Court in one case held that the counsel to a Senate 
subcommittee who allegedly conspired with state officials to seize 
property and records by unlawful means in violation of the fourth 
amendment was not entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate 
Clause and would have to appear as a defendant in a civil action and, 
if found liable, pay damages. However, the chairman of the subcommittee 
who had also been named as a party defendant was entitled to the 
immunity.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dombrowski v Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lower courts have adjudicated the validity of subpenas issued by 
committees. For example, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 
held that a Senate subpena duces tecum requiring Western Union to 
supply all copies of all telegrams sent or received by a law firm for a 
10-month period in 1935 exceeded any legitimate exercise of the subpena 
power.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Strawn v Western Union, 3 USL Week 646 (SCDC, Mar. 11, 1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, a federal district court expressed its view of a subpena 
duces tecum which specified ``the minute books, contracts, reports, 
documents, books of account, etc., either belonging to the relator or 
to the Railway Audit and Inspection Company, Inc., with which he was 
connected'' in the following manner:

        [T]he subpena on its face, shows a mere fishing expedition into 
    the private affairs of the relator and his company, not within the 
    scope of the com

[[Page 2367]]

    mittee's investigation, and an encroachment upon defendant's rights 
    under the Fourth Amendment. . . . The duces tecum part of the 
    subpena is so lacking in specification and description, and so wide 
    in its demands, that it is felt it could not have been ordered had 
    the application for it been made to this court.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. United States v Groves, 18 F Supp 3 (W.D. Pa. 1937); because the 
        case was decided on the point of failure to appear before the 
        committee, the statement relating to the subpena was dictum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although courts refuse to enforce subpenas which they find to be 
overbroad, they refuse to limit a committee's use of information in its 
possession. After telegraph companies refused to comply with a Senate 
committee's subpena duces tecum directing them to produce all telegrams 
transmitted from their offices from Feb. 1 to Sept. 1 of 1935, 
representatives of the committee and the Federal Trade Commission 
examined these messages and made notes and copies. Conceding that a 
court could enjoin this ``trespass'' while it was being conducted, a 
court of appeals stated that it lacked authority to enjoin use of the 
material after the committee had gained possession.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Hearst v Black, 87 F2d 68, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A subpena for documents held in a representative capacity need not 
be as specific as one for documents belonging to an individual. Thus, a 
subpena directing production of ``All records, correspondence and 
memoranda of the Civil Rights Congress relating to: . . . (1) the 
organization of the group; (2) its affiliation with other 
organizations; and (3) all monies received or expended by it,'' did not 
constitute ``unreasonable search and seizure.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. McPhaul v United States, 364 U.S. 372, 381 (1960); compare McPhaul 
        with United States v Groves, 18 F Supp 3 (W.D. Pa. 1937), note 
        supra, which discusses a subpena for papers which belong to an 
        individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------