Federal court Jury duty

[Frank Ettin]

...That was the core of my question. How is this *not* equivalent to a search? The means are different. The results could be the same...

As long as a federal court of appeals has not ruled that asking a question is a search, it is not a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

...Reasonable is a weasel-word. I acknowledge that the courts have decided some things are reasonable and others are not,...

And you're forgetting the context in which this is being discussed. We are discussing a questionnaire soliciting information from prospective federal trial jurors to help assess whether a person could or could not be an impartial, fair juror in a particular case. That is a matter of considerable significance to the parties in the case, and certainly the defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to an impartial jury.

If you were a defendant being prosecuted for a crime, you would no, I suspect, want your lawyer to have as much information about prospective jurors as reasonably possible to assist him in attempting to exclude from the jury persons who might not be impartial or fair. You'd want something similar if you were a party to civil litigation.

We have a strong policy favoring the integrity of juries and assuring that persons actually deciding the outcome of a trial are impartial and fair. The courts will sustain some inconvenience to jurors and some intrusion into the privacy of jurors in order to further that policy. Such is the price of having, to the extent reasonably possible, fair and impartial juries.

You apparently don't agree that is a fair price, but that doesn't matter as long as the courts do.

 

[dogrunner]

Ah, but Frank, I, for one, DO object to your characterization of any aspect of our bill of rights as a "privilege!...........Just to be pedantic about it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Ah, but Frank, I, for one, DO object to your characterization of any aspect of our bill of rights as a "privilege!...........Just to be pedantic about it.

Object all you want, but to be accurate (rather than just pedantic) in the law we refer various rights not to testify or to answer questions as "privileges." As the Supreme Court wrote in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, 36 O.O.2d 237 (1966), at 444 (emphasis added):

...Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination...

As the Supreme Court wrote in Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246, Supreme Court 2013, at page 4 of the slip opinion (emphasis added):

...Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question. It has long been settled that the privilege "generally is not self-executing" and that a witness who desires its protection "'must claim it.'"...

It's not a matter of you being pedantic. It's a matter of you not understanding the correct terminology.

 

[jason_iowa]

It's auto populated as no so you can not leave it blank. It also has the required * beside it.

If it were pertaining to a specific case it should be asked during jury selection not in a jury summons. You would also think they would ask how I felt about guns rather then gun ownership. Owning a gun has little or no bearing on how I feel about guns or how it may bias me in a trial. I know many people who have an anti gun mentality but have a family heirloom.

Also If I have a roommate who owns guns but I hate them and could be totally bias against them what does possession of someone in my household tell them other then there are or are not guns present at my address?

I answered honestly. I just find the question to be inappropriate. To compel someone to answer a personal question just because they are registered to vote. It seems like a violation of privacy to me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If it were pertaining to a specific case it should be asked during jury selection not in a jury summons...

I do find it odd that the questionnaire was included with the summons and needed to be answered at that stage. In our state courts a prospective juror calls in to see if he has to go to the courthouse; and he is not asked to complete the preliminary questionnaire unless he has to go to the courthouse and is therefor likely to be included in a pool for selection.

 

[tyme]

I think it's a federal jury duty thing.

I guess because the federal courts are much more organized and know what cases are going to trial, when you get called for federal jury duty you've already been placed into a jury pool for a specific case before you get there? Having potential jurors fill out a short survey somehow helps them allocate jurors to cases? If I recall, when I got my federal jury duty notice, there was a several-week window during which they could call me in for duty (they never did). And for reference, I'm not even in the same federal circuit as Iowa.

I too can't fathom how household possession of guns by itself, or what kinds of guns they are, is relevant to selecting a juror. As Jason pointed out, even if you want a jury that loves or hates guns of a particular type, it's *still* irrelevant. Some of the most obnoxious anti-gun folks have EBRs or MGs, while some of those who don't own guns strongly respect others' rights to own, carry and use them for all lawful purposes.

 

[Spats McGee]

One of the things that I see going on in this thread is that: (a) several of the posters object to the question as an unwarranted invasion of privacy; and (b) are trying to shoehorn that objection into legal terms. That's perfectly understandable. As an attorney, I see this all the time. Someone feels that he or she "was done wrong," and files a lawsuit. Right, wrong, or indifferent, "I was done wrong" is not a cause of action recognized by our legal system. In order for the Complaint to survive a Motion to Dismiss, it has to articulate the facts giving rise to the cause of action, as well as the legally-recognized injury that was caused by the aforementioned facts. Something like, "I met all the requirements of X, Y and Z, thus developing a right to have my Certificate of Whoknowswhat. However, the Defendant denied my Certificate of Whoknowswhat without cause or justification. As a result, I lost Umpteen Million Dollars."

Several of the posts that I've read look like the poster is trying to find some way to squeeze "mandatory question on a form as a violation of rights" somewhere in between the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment. While there are certainly cases involving one of these "penumbra of rights" theories, I'm unaware of any that fit the bill in this case. For those interested continuing the search, I'd suggest looking into cases in which the IRS has been sued. The IRS gets sued on a regular basis. Surely someone, somewhere has raised this. Such cases may be listed as "Plaintiff v. U.S.," but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[JimDandy]

4b. Tax law asks questions about finances and other things relevant to how much tax you owe.

The Cato institute article I linked earlier dealt with the IRS, the 4th amendment, and their summons power. According to the article, the IRS can summons just about anything for the civil side of their tax investigations. Their summons for a criminal proceeding do have to follow the 4th. However, the IRS evidently gets an extreme amount of leeway in determining what is and isn't civil. (At least according to the article which does appear to have a bias on the topic)

The Constitution does not prohibit a search without a warrant. The Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches. All sorts of searches under various circumstances are permissible without warrants.

And the Supreme Court has said that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. Right before they said there are a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.

It's auto populated as no so you can not leave it blank. It also has the required * beside it.

Where did you fill out this auto populated e-form? (as you said it was auto populated, I'm assuming it was an electronic form on a computer?) Was it at the courthouse? If so, was there a uniformed or otherwise-obvious (badge, ID, etc.) court officer watching over the group of you filling out this form? Did you feel like you could leave without filling out the form?

Boyd v. United States - 116 U.S. 616 (1886) says:

It does not require actual entry upon premises and search for and seizure of papers to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; a compulsory production of a party's private books and papers to be used against himself or his property in a criminal or penal proceeding, or for a forfeiture, is within the spirit and meaning of the Amendment.
It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers to make the nonproduction of them a confession of the allegations which it is pretended they will prove.

Which seems to mean the government can't force you to bring a receipt for your firearm (barring firearms specific things like 4473 forms etc.) if they can't search for, and then seize the receipt themselves via a warrant. Is this accurate?

In Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States - 251 U.S. 385 (1920)

The proposition could not be presented more nakedly. It is that, although, of course, its seizure was an outrage which the Government now regrets, it may study the papers before it returns them, copy them, and then may use the knowledge that it has gained to call upon the owners in a more regular form to produce them;

Which seems to mean that a reproduction is subject to more or less the same restrictions as the original.

In KYLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.
(Which may be of further interest to interest to Spats McGee in the vein of Katz and physical vs non)

This case presents the question whether the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

And

In Silverman, for example, we made clear that any physical invasion of the structure of the home, “by even a fraction of an inch,” was too much, 365 U.S., at 512, and there is certainly no exception to the warrant requirement for the officer who barely cracks open the front door and sees nothing but the nonintimate rug on the vestibule floor. In the home, our cases show, all details are intimate details, because the entire area is held safe from prying government eyes.

And "Do you or anyone in your household possess a fire arm? Yes/No" certainly crosses into that "entire area" "held safe from prying government eyes".

Edit for Spats: Yeah that's most of where I've been looking. That Cato aticle started me down that path, and it's got dusty memory in the back of my mind trying to come to the surface but I can't remember enough of it yet to get a good search query. Something about a guy getting charged in State Court for income reported to the IRS for some money making activity illegal in his state, maybe gambling. I remember he claimed a 5th amendment violation, and lost, because he could have refused to report the source, but since he did it was somehow deemed voluntary. I have to keep thinking about it to remember more.

 

[jason_iowa]

If an officer of the court came to your home and asked that question would it be appropriate? If they told you that if you do not answer honestly that you will be guilty of perjury.

What if they asked on the census?

To me it just seems more inappropriate then anything. I'm not saying they are violating my constitutional rights.

It would be nice to know how my ownership or lack there of could be germane to the proceedings.

I'm a potential juror for the second quarter of the calendar year. Maybe someday Ill find out if there is a gun related case up in this quarter.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And the Supreme Court has said that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. Right before they said there are a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions...

Exactly where and in what context? And picking a few sentences out of a court decision is not legal research. A court decision and any precedential value can only be properly understood in the context of the issue(s) presented by the underlying case.

You still have not cited a federal court of appeal case saying that the simple asking of a question is a search.

And see post 47.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .To me it just seems more inappropriate then anything. I'm not saying they are violating my constitutional rights.

Have you considered simply writing a letter to the case coordinator, or the jury panel office, or whatever office sent you the summons, and indicating that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the form? That might resolve the issue for you.

 

[JimDandy]

Exactly where and in what context? And picking a few sentences out of a court decision is not legal research. A court decision and any precedential value can only be properly understood in the context of the issue(s) presented by the underlying case.

It's in the same Katz decision you were quoting.

"Over and again, this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes," United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment [n18] -- subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions. [n19]

which says much the same thing you did, but as the issue was context and accuracy, I added the Court's words as opposed to the paraphrasing, because contextually "a few specifically estabished and well delineated exceptions" isn't the same as "All Sorts" and "various". I wasn't disagreeing, merely providing the words of the Court for better context.

And see post 47.

I saw post 47, but was waiting for more posters to address it in depth, so I wasn't posting back-to-back.

One of the things that I see going on in this thread is that: (a) several of the posters object to the question as an unwarranted invasion of privacy; and (b) are trying to shoehorn that objection into legal terms.

and

Several of the posts that I've read look like the poster is trying to find some way to squeeze "mandatory question on a form as a violation of rights" somewhere in between the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment.

Any objection to this question must be put into legal terms for a legal challenge, not? If I get called, and I object to this, shouldn't I go in forewarned about where the issue stands? A great many of these 4A and 5A questions hinge on whether the person answered a question or allowed a search when they knew, or should have known they didn't have to and similar events. Like that IRS case I'm not quite remembering. The guy didn't have to identify the income source, did it because he thought he had to, then couldn't object to it afterwards, because rather than refusing, he thought he had to and could prevent it's use afterwards.

You still have not cited a federal court of appeal case saying that the simple asking of a question is a search.

No I haven't. Nor have you provided one that says requiring a person to verbally or otherwise inventory the contents of their home isn't a search. I have provided several that show a search is not limited to an officer physically entering your home and looking around himself, and that compelling production of records is a search.

Have you considered simply writing a letter to the case coordinator, or the jury panel office, or whatever office sent you the summons, and indicating that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the form? That might resolve the issue for you.

From the sounds of his other posts, that ship has sailed. I think I saw him say he'd already answered it. As such, his answers may now be public record. This Oklahoma site says various states differ some are, some aren't. I also skimmed another article about it getting recent(2011-ish) federal court attention, so I don't know where it lies now.

 

[jason_iowa]

Have you considered simply writing a letter to the case coordinator, or the jury panel office, or whatever office sent you the summons, and indicating that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the form? That might resolve the issue for you.

No I simply answered the question. Yes, shotgun, general use. That is the first gun I ever owned so i felt that it would suffice.

 

[kraigwy]

Tell them Uncle Joe told you to get a double barreled shotgun for defense.

On a serious note, that's a generic questionnaire lawyers use to weed out potential conflicts of interest.

Some really get lengthily , and very to the type of crime/suite being considered.

If this or any question bothers you don't answer it. No one will notice until you get called and its a gun related course.

You said you were in LE, so the question will never come up because the defense will have you replaced before you get to the gun question.

I've been scheduled for jury duty several times, but being retired LE, I was never allowed on a jury. Federal, state, or local. They don't like cops on juries.

Some do sneak in on civil cases though.

I got to the point I just go as far as saying I'm retired LE and don't finish filling out the form. I've never be questioned why I decided not to answer.

 

[davem]

Rather than all this recent legal court decisions etc. that tells us just how free or un-free we may or may not be I am looking at this from a Founding Father's view point. I have mentioned the 4th Amendment but there is the 9th and 10th and it seems to me that there are other rights vested in the citizen beyond those in the 1st to 8th. One is these is a right to privacy. Now I would say there are limits on that right but the limits must pertain to the case in hand.
For example let's say that the Supreme Court says mandatory gun registration at the Federal level is unconstitutional. SO...a bunch in Washington decides "No Problem, we'll just work it a different way" So they put a tax on all firearms which is to be added to your Federal Income tax. NOW IF YOU DON'T comply you are in violation of a federal income tax occurrence. This firearms tax requires the serial number and make of every gun in the country.
As I see matters, such a thing is unconstitutional, the purpose of the tax is to collect revenues not find out who owns a firearm. Applying this to a jury summons question that if you don't answer may put you in legal trouble- I think it is the same thing. As I said, it should not be up to the court system to start filtering jurors. They can do a criminal background check (public records) and weed out criminals but screening jurors should be something done by the DA and defense attorney, not the court system.
What to do on the summons? Man, I don't know. You are alone, all my yourself. Isn't that how government's gain power. Take us on one at a time.
Maybe write back, "I find your question unacceptable and a violation of privacy and my Constitutional freedoms. You have a right to summon me for jury duty and I will comply. tell me when to appear and I will appear. I will answer any question put to me by a District attorney or defense attorney, in seating the jury. If you wish to legally prosecute me I will demand a trial tried by a jury of my peers. I doubt such a jury will find me at fault."
QUESTION. On this government right to search without warrant. On a hunting license you agree to let a wildlife officer search your vehicle or camp. On a driver's license you agree to let an officer within reason search your vehicle, same with boats, etc. How do the rest of you see this "unwarranted" wording in the Constitution? Recently it seems the logic is "Unwarranted" means the same thing as unreasonable. Traditionally I thought it meant a law enforcement officer with a court issued warranted IN HAND that listed the law you violated and what was to be searched. If the thing to be searched was a person you may have kidnapped, etc., the law enforcement officer could not be opening up a small drawer since a human being could not be in such a place. Without a court ordered warrant in hand no law enforcement officer could conduct a search unless it was within the actual occurrence of a crime being conducted.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

On a hunting license you agree to let a wildlife officer search your vehicle or camp. On a driver's license you agree to let an officer within reason search your vehicle, same with boats, etc.

Uh... no you don't.

 

[JimDandy]

They can do a criminal background check (public records) and weed out criminals but screening jurors should be something done by the DA and defense attorney, not the court system.

From what we've (or at least I've) heard and assumed based on the OP, this is a Jury Questionnaire, and part of voir dire. The questions are put there by the two sides of the case. Prosecutor/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent whatever the correct technical terms are.

Additionally, they may or may not do a background check or weed out the criminals. Serving on a jury, from what I remember, is a civil right that may or may not be restored depending on where you live and what steps, if any you have or have to have undertaken to restore your civil rights.


Law Enforcement (State Patrol, local police, Coast Guard for boats) may or may not be able to perform a safety inspection. This is not the same thing as a search.

For example there was a guy named Rodney Joseph Gant. He was pulled over, arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car. The courts decided that because Gant was handcuffed and locked in the back of a police car and thus couldn't get any weapons, or destroy evidence in the car, the government needed a warrant to search his car.

 

[davem]

One more thought. I know we are all frustrated these days with criminals "walking" because the police didn't handle matters correctly, all sorts of things along those lines. I'll agree it is a problem. Then, we all want to be good citizens, what's wrong with answering a few intrusive questions, no harm, etc. The issue is when to complain? Personally I think the time to complain has long since passed. For example in a lot of situations today you really don't get a trial by jury, you get an administrative law court judge or some type of arbitration because it is "more expedient". I've often wondered about whether such things would have been acceptable to the founding fathers? In a lot of instances there is a clever tie in to more government control. On the wildlife officer searching your vehicle. If you don't want to submit to that then fine- the attitude is just don't buy a hunting license. BUT isn't hunting an American activity enjoyed prior to the Constitution? Under pre-existing rights wouldn't it be protected by the 9th Amendment? I think the 9th has teeth, I may be wrong but I think that was what the Supreme Court used to say Slavery was Constitutional and why an Amendment needed to be passed to Constitutionally prohibit slavery.
In any event it seems to me that questions on a jury summons that have no bearing to you arriving on time to serve as a juror are not valid. Whether you will or will not be an impartial juror isn't a function of the court system, that ought to be dealt with by the two attorneys in the case.
Let me side step a little. Remember when Clinton pardoned a fugitive from justice by the name of Rich? It was on all the talk shows and all the current day experts said the often stated fact that the president's pardon power was "Absolute". Well I was listening to this over and over and then got thinking that the way the Constitution was written- very little was absolute. There is a law library not far from where I live so I went and read the cases on file. Wow! Times do change. There was case back in the early 1800's that was very similar and the Supreme Court THEN felt the pardon power could not be used to cloud the separation of powers established by the Constitution. In short, a fugitive from justice was answerable to the Judicial Branch of government, the president could pardon AFTER a conviction but he could not use the pardon power to prohibit the Judicial branch from exercising its Constitutional power to prosecute a crime. The reasoning of the supreme court at the time was pretty sound. The court felt the pardon could be used as an obstruction of justice, that without a trial facts that may implement others would never be discovered. The Presidential pardon power was the federal equivalent to a Governor's power on State level crimes.
Of course it is no longer that way but I mention that in the respect that I don't think government can just on its own hook intrude in areas beyond its function or role. So, to me at least, such questions on a jury summons are inappropriate.

 

[davem]

JimDandy: well if that is the situation then I'm not inflexible but it would be nice for the court to explain things, such as, "You have been pre-selected as a potential juror in Smith vs. The City of Hometown, a case involving firearms ownership. Both the District Attorney and the Defense Attorney have a right to question potential jurors and both have a right to refuse a set number of potential jurors. Accordingly, do you possess a firearm? Your answering this question insures us we have an adequate number of potential jurors that are both gun possessors and not gun possessors so that a jury can be seated""
Maybe I'll agree with that set up but its all in the name of being expedient, I think it might be better to limit the weeding out in the courtroom.

 

[JimDandy]

Then, we all want to be good citizens, what's wrong with answering a few intrusive questions, no harm, etc.

The harm is in the intrusive question itself. It may not be a crime to have an extra-marital affair, but stick that on a questionnaire and it may become public record for your soon to be ex-wife to use in Divorce Court. As for the firearms question, your vehemently anti-2A boss decides to fire you for answering yes, someone in your household has a firearm.

BUT isn't hunting an American activity enjoyed prior to the Constitution?

One of the professionals will have to contradict me if I get this wrong, but hunting isn't a (Federal) right. Hunting is a privilege. That's why it's legal for the State of X to charge more for an out-of-state permit than an in-state permit.