## Facts

- A city police department opened an internal-affairs investigation after a citizen alleged a police officer used excessive force during an arrest.
- Department policy required officers to cooperate in internal investigations; refusal or false statements could result in discipline or termination.
- Officers interviewed in the internal investigation received written notice that their statements “may not be used against them in criminal proceedings.”
- Department policy treated internal-affairs materials as confidential, while noting that confidentiality did not mean the files were never discoverable in legal proceedings.
- The U.S. Department of Justice began a federal civil-rights investigation into the same arrest.
- A federal grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum seeking the internal-affairs investigative file, including officer statements.
- The city, on behalf of the department, moved to quash, asserting (1) disclosure would impair internal-affairs effectiveness by breaching confidentiality assurances and (2) disclosure risked implicating Fifth Amendment concerns because statements were compelled under threat of job sanctions and accompanied by non-use assurances.
- The government stated it sought the materials largely to close its investigation and did not expect the documents to reveal prosecutable offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) in quashing a federal grand jury subpoena as “unreasonable or oppressive” when the subpoena sought internal-affairs materials obtained under confidentiality and criminal non-use assurances tied to compelled officer cooperation.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the order quashing the subpoena.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that compliance would be “unreasonable or oppressive” under Rule 17(c).
- The court emphasized the substantial discretion afforded district courts in evaluating motions to quash grand jury subpoenas.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) permits quashing or modifying a subpoena if compliance would be “unreasonable or oppressive,” and it provides a procedural mechanism to raise constitutional or related objections to a grand jury subpoena.
- Appellate review of an order enforcing or quashing a Rule 17(c) subpoena is for abuse of discretion; district courts have wide latitude in balancing competing interests in the grand jury context.
- Although grand juries have broad investigatory authority, that authority is subject to constitutional and rule-based limits, and courts may consider whether requested materials are reasonably necessary to the investigation as presented.
- In assessing “unreasonable or oppressive,” a court may weigh institutional interests and reliance on confidentiality assurances that support effective internal investigations, including the risk that compelled disclosure will chill future candor.
- Where internal-affairs statements were compelled under threat of employment sanctions and accompanied by written assurances of criminal non-use, Fifth Amendment-related concerns may reinforce a determination that compelled production is unreasonable in light of the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld quashing a grand jury subpoena for a police department’s internal-affairs file, concluding that the district court acted within its Rule 17(c) discretion in balancing the government’s limited articulated need against confidentiality reliance interests and concerns associated with compelled officer statements given under criminal non-use assurances.


In re Grand Jury, John Doe No. G.J. 2005-2, 478 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2007)