FEDERAL · 21 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER I—CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Subpenas
21 U.S.C. § 876
This text of 21 U.S.C. § 876 (Subpenas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
21 U.S.C. § 876.
Text
(a)Authorization of use by Attorney General
In any investigation relating to his functions under this subchapter with respect to controlled substances, listed chemicals, tableting machines, or encapsulating machines, the Attorney General may subpena witnesses, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and require the production of any records (including books, papers, documents, and other tangible things which constitute or contain evidence) which the Attorney General finds relevant or material to the investigation. The attendance of witnesses and the production of records may be required from any place in any State or in any territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at any designated place of hearing; except that a witness shall not be required to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. Daccarett
6 F.3d 37 (Second Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Lawson
502 F. Supp. 158 (D. Maryland, 1980)
Hell's Angels Motorcycle Corporation, a California Corporation the Oakland Charter of the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club v. Timothy McKinley
360 F.3d 930 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association
689 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
860 F.3d 1228 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Joseph Zadeh
820 F.3d 746 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Hossbach
518 F. Supp. 759 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)
United States v. Robert W. Harrington and Paul McLeod
761 F.2d 1482 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Moffett
84 F.3d 1291 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Gloria Taylor
54 F.4th 795 (Fourth Circuit, 2022)
Doe v. Ashcroft
334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration
998 F. Supp. 2d 957 (D. Oregon, 2014)
Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Drug Enforcement Administration
693 F. Supp. 542 (E.D. Michigan, 1988)
Hell's Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. County of Monterey
89 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. California, 2000)
US Dep't of Justice v. Ricco Jonas
24 F.4th 718 (First Circuit, 2022)
State v. Johnston
2019 WI App 15 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2019)
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc.
(W.D. New York, 2020)
MacDonald v. Navajo Nation ex rel. Rothstein
6 Navajo Rptr. 290 (Navajo Nation Supreme Court, 1990)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §506, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1272; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6058, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4319.)
Editorial Notes
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–690 inserted "listed chemicals, tableting machines, or encapsulating machines," after "with respect to controlled substances,".
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–690 effective 120 days after Nov. 18, 1988, see section 6061 of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as a note under section 802 of this title.
Amendments
1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–690 inserted "listed chemicals, tableting machines, or encapsulating machines," after "with respect to controlled substances,".
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–690 effective 120 days after Nov. 18, 1988, see section 6061 of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as a note under section 802 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
21 U.S.C. § 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/21/876.