United States v. Apodaca
251 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- Agustin and Panfilo Flores Apodaca are defendants in federal drug- and firearm-related indictments returned by D.D.C. grand juries; both were extradited from Mexico and are co-defendants in the consolidated matter.
- The government served Rule 17 subpoenas on the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) for recorded jail phone calls; DOC produced a set that the government collected by courier and later delivered two CDs of recordings to the Court with a letter.
- Defense counsel objected, arguing pretrial production required court approval under Rule 17(c) and citing DOC policy limiting disclosure absent judicial process; DOC declined voluntary production but received administrative subpoenas from the FBI under 21 U.S.C. § 876.
- The government moved to enforce the two FBI administrative subpoenas seeking recorded calls from Oct. 21, 2015 to Feb. 7, 2017, representing an ongoing investigation into controlled-substance activity and asserting relevance.
- The court addressed standing, statutory authority, relevance, and Fourth Amendment objections and ordered enforcement of the FBI administrative subpoenas, allowing the government to retrieve the CDs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do defendants have standing to challenge enforcement of administrative subpoenas? | Def. lacks standing because DOC (not defendant) was subpoenaed; no Fourth Amendment interest. | Defendants argue they can challenge subpoenas because information obtained may be used against them and statute does not limit standing. | Defendants lack Fourth Amendment standing but do have statutory standing to challenge whether the agency exceeded its authority. |
| Do the FBI administrative subpoenas satisfy statutory and judicial enforcement standards under § 876 and related doctrine? | The subpoenas were issued in a lawful investigation into controlled-substance offenses; recordings are relevant to ongoing investigation and not already in government possession. | Government is using administrative subpoenas post-indictment to obtain evidence for the existing case; this circumvents Rule 17(c) and may be improper. | The government made the minimum showing required: a lawful investigation exists and the requested calls are reasonably relevant; court enforces the subpoenas. |
| Can an agency use administrative subpoenas post-indictment to obtain evidence for a pending case? | § 876 authorizes subpoenas in any investigation; post-indictment collection is permissible, especially if additional wrongdoing is sought. | Post-indictment use to obtain evidence for current indictment improperly aids litigation and may bypass judicial oversight required by Rule 17(c). | Court notes circuit ambiguity but, given government representations of an ongoing investigation into additional wrongdoing and limited judicial role, enforces subpoenas; leaves open broader circuit question. |
| Do subpoenas violate the defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights? | Government: defendants were notified that calls are recorded; agency satisfied administrative subpoena requirements so Fourth Amendment not implicated. | Defendants contend recordings are private and seizure via administrative subpoena violates Fourth Amendment. | Defendants have no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls; administrative-subpoena standards satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements; no Fourth Amendment violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for enforcing administrative subpoenas: authorized purpose, relevance, and reasonableness)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for pretrial production via Rule 17)
- FTC v. Texaco, 555 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir.) (limited judicial role in enforcing administrative subpoenas)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Thornton, 41 F.3d 1539 (D.C. Cir.) (administrative subpoenas enforceable post-indictment when seeking additional wrongdoing)
- In re Letter of Request from Crown Prosecution Serv., 870 F.2d 686 (D.C. Cir.) (targets of information obtained by subpoena can challenge agency authority)
- United States v. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053 (6th Cir.) (discussion of expectations of privacy and post-indictment subpoenas)
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (Sup. Ct.) (administrative searches require precompliance neutral review)
- Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 (Sup. Ct.) (prisoners lack privacy expectation in institutional settings)