United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association
2012 WL 3185827
9th Cir.2012Background
- Golden Valley Electric Association (Golden Valley) is a member-owned cooperative serving ~44,000 meters in Alaska.
- The DEA subpoenaed Golden Valley for electricity usage and related customer information at three residences as part of a drug investigation.
- Golden Valley initially refused to comply, citing customer record confidentiality.
- The district court enforced the subpoena under 21 U.S.C. § 876(c).
- Golden Valley complied with the subpoena but appealed the enforcement order; the appeal is not moot.
- The court reviews enforcement of administrative subpoenas de novo and addresses mootness and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Golden Valley's appeal moot after compliance? | GoldValley complied; appeal mootness unclear | N/A | Not moot; appeal preserved |
| Whether the subpoena was relevant to the investigation | Records relevant to possible drug manufacture/distribution. | Relevance uncertain; energy use fluctuations not clearly tied. | Records relevant; sufficient to support investigation |
| Whether the subpoena was procedurally proper under §876(a) | AG authorized via DEA supervisor; records relevant. | Procedural gaps alleged; lack of verified investigation. | Procedurally proper; DEA agent authorized the subpoena |
| Whether the subpoena was a permissible John Doe/group subpoena | Subpoena targeted three specific residences. | Should be treated as a broad group subpoena. | Not a John Doe subpoena; narrow and specific |
| Whether the subpoena complies with the Fourth Amendment | Administrative subpoenas have limited Fourth Amendment safeguards. | Higher privacy protections may apply; warrants/grand jury subpoenas preferred. | Subpoena complies with Fourth Amendment constraints |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (mootness exception; government may not erase effects of records after subpoena)
- Knox v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012) (mootness; concrete interest persists in outcome)
- United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964) (probable cause not required for administrative subpoenas)
- Okla. Publ’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946) (administrative subpoenas similar to grand jury under limits)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (grand jury/subpoena review for compliance)
- Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (1950) (reasonableness of subpoena scope; inquisition analogy)