Local
Nickles defends subpoena power for police
By: Bill Myers
Examiner Staff Writer
December 19, 2008
D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles on Thursday tried to tamp down the controversy over the police department’s newly granted subpoena power.
He was less than successful.
“To me, it’s no big deal,” Nickles said, referring to a mayoral order giving Police Chief Cathy Lanier and her officers the power to issue subpoenas in “any municipal matter.”
“We’ve got to close down those murder cases,” Nickles said.
Nickles’ comments fly in the face of an agreement made between the city and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, according to sources familiar with those discussions. Prosecutors agreed not to challenge the policy, sources said, as long as the city promised not to use the subpoena power for major cases — like murder.
Critics of the measure are lining up.
“That has the theoretical potential to screw up investigations royally,” said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney in D.C. “The record of the Metropolitan Police Department in solving homicides is not good to begin with. I can see the potential for disaster in criminal cases.”
D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was “uneasy about what this order means” and might call hearings.
Tim Lynch, a criminal law expert at the Cato Institute, called the subpoena order “mind-boggling.”
“This is an extraordinary development,” he said. “It places the liberty of every business person or D.C. resident in the hands of a police officer.”
A few states have so called “one-man grand jury” laws that allow a special prosecutor, usually a judge or a retired judge, to issue subpoenas in special cases. But D.C.’s order is unprecedented, Lynch said.
“I don’t think it’s even been debated anywhere,” Lynch said.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Art Spitzer said the order violates citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights.
“The chief could use this power as if she were a grand jury and force people to come in to testify,” Spitzer said. “I’d be concerned.”
Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said Thursday that they have been given assurances from the police that “whatever subpoena power they have will not frustrate our joint work.”
In criminal investigations, Phillips said, “we will continue to rely on the grand jury, and its subpoena power, as we have for decades.”
He was less than successful.
“To me, it’s no big deal,” Nickles said, referring to a mayoral order giving Police Chief Cathy Lanier and her officers the power to issue subpoenas in “any municipal matter.”
“We’ve got to close down those murder cases,” Nickles said.
Nickles’ comments fly in the face of an agreement made between the city and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, according to sources familiar with those discussions. Prosecutors agreed not to challenge the policy, sources said, as long as the city promised not to use the subpoena power for major cases — like murder.
Critics of the measure are lining up.
“That has the theoretical potential to screw up investigations royally,” said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney in D.C. “The record of the Metropolitan Police Department in solving homicides is not good to begin with. I can see the potential for disaster in criminal cases.”
D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was “uneasy about what this order means” and might call hearings.
Tim Lynch, a criminal law expert at the Cato Institute, called the subpoena order “mind-boggling.”
“This is an extraordinary development,” he said. “It places the liberty of every business person or D.C. resident in the hands of a police officer.”
A few states have so called “one-man grand jury” laws that allow a special prosecutor, usually a judge or a retired judge, to issue subpoenas in special cases. But D.C.’s order is unprecedented, Lynch said.
“I don’t think it’s even been debated anywhere,” Lynch said.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Art Spitzer said the order violates citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights.
“The chief could use this power as if she were a grand jury and force people to come in to testify,” Spitzer said. “I’d be concerned.”
Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said Thursday that they have been given assurances from the police that “whatever subpoena power they have will not frustrate our joint work.”
In criminal investigations, Phillips said, “we will continue to rely on the grand jury, and its subpoena power, as we have for decades.”
