Disciplinary Petition Accuses Potter County DA Andy Watson of Improper Subpoena Practice
COUDERSPORT, Pa. — Potter County District Attorney Andy Joseph Watson is facing formal disciplinary charges before the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania over allegations that his office improperly used subpoenas for years to obtain confidential information during criminal investigations where no active court case was pending.
Watson denies intentionally violating the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and has asked that the petition be dismissed.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleges that, while serving as Potter County District Attorney between 2010 and 2022, Watson issued or caused subpoenas to be issued to third parties using “miscellaneous” case captions, despite there being no active court proceeding connected to the investigations.
According to the petition, the practice was used to seek records involving potential suspects and others in criminal investigations before charges had been filed.
Petition Alleges Sensitive Records Were Obtained Without Active Cases
The disciplinary petition alleges that Watson’s subpoenas sought personal, confidential or privileged records from third parties in matters where no criminal case was pending.
The categories of information listed in the petition include:
- Telephone and cell phone records;
- Utility and email provider information;
- Wiring information;
- Internet protocol addresses and online account information;
- Medical and mental health records;
- Purchase records;
- Bank and credit card account information;
- Prescription information;
- Employment and personnel records;
- Surveillance footage;
- Records relating to other criminal investigations;
- Juvenile records;
- Hotel reservation information;
- Insurance claim records;
- University transcripts; and
- Weapon ownership records.
The petition alleges that the information obtained through the subpoenas was later used to investigate and file criminal charges against individuals.
Disciplinary counsel further alleges that the miscellaneous docket files connected to the subpoenas were maintained in the Potter County Prothonotary’s Office and were accessible to the public.
Watson admits that miscellaneous subpoena files existed, but denies that responsive private records received from third parties were placed in those publicly accessible files.
Allegations Include Non-Disclosure Agreements Referring to Court Authority
The petition also alleges that, beginning in approximately 2012, Watson implemented a procedure in which subpoenas seeking information in criminal investigations were accompanied by non-disclosure agreements.
According to disciplinary counsel, the agreements included language stating: “You are hereby ordered by the Court” to provide records.
The petition alleges that the agreements also instructed recipients not to disclose the subpoena to the person whose information was being requested, on the basis that disclosure could impede an investigation or obstruct justice.
Disciplinary counsel alleges that those agreements falsely represented that a court had authorized Watson to obtain the information, compelled the recipient to provide it and prohibited the recipient from notifying the subject of the request.
In his answer, Watson denies that non-disclosure agreements were included with every third-party subpoena. He claims that some subpoena recipients requested such agreements and supplied investigating officers with sample forms, which his office then used or modified.
Watson also denies intentionally misleading subpoena recipients regarding the authority behind the subpoenas.
Watson Says Practice Predated His Time as District Attorney
Watson admits that many subpoenas listing a miscellaneous caption were issued to third parties between 2010 and 2022 while he served as district attorney.
However, he disputes the petition’s characterization that the practice occurred on “hundreds” of occasions, stating that he does not know the specific number of subpoenas issued.
Watson also states that he did not personally fill out the subpoenas. According to his answer, law enforcement officers would request subpoenas from his staff, and office staff would prepare and submit them.
Watson’s defense is that the investigative subpoena practice had been used in Potter County for years before he became district attorney and that, prior to December 2022, he did not believe or understand that the process was improper.
In his answer, Watson identifies former Potter County district attorneys Dawn Fink and Jeff Leber as predecessors who, he claims, used the same subpoena procedure.
Watson states that he had no recollection of the practice being challenged by the judiciary or defense attorneys before December 2022. He further claims that his office had previously presented investigative subpoena issues to the court in motions to compel without the court raising concerns about the underlying procedure.
Court Issued Administrative Order in January 2023
According to both filings, the Potter County Court became aware of the investigative subpoena practice in or around December 2022.
The petition states that, on Jan. 17, 2023, Potter County President Judge Stephen P.B. Minor issued an administrative order addressing the use of subpoenas in Potter County.
According to the petition, the order provided that subpoenas could not be issued under court authority unless a formal civil or criminal matter had been filed; could not be used for pre-complaint discovery or investigation before a matter was filed; and could not be used to obtain confidential or legally protected information outside proper legal procedures.
Watson admits the court issued the order.
He states that, once the use of investigative subpoenas was challenged, he investigated the matter, determined that the long-standing practice was procedurally improper and immediately discontinued its use.
Foulkrod Firearms Case Central to Disciplinary Charges
The petition also identifies a criminal prosecution, Commonwealth v. Foulkrod, as part of the disciplinary case against Watson.
According to the petition, Watson met with Judge Minor and Potter County Court Administrator Jennifer Saulter on Jan. 18, 2023, to address the improperly issued subpoenas. The petition alleges that Watson represented to Judge Minor that he would not use information improperly obtained through unauthorized third-party subpoenas in current or future prosecutions.
The petition alleges that, on March 2, 2023, Watson filed or caused to be filed an information against a defendant in the Foulkrod case listing 69 counts of possession of a firearm prohibited. Disciplinary counsel alleges that Watson knew the information had been filed based on evidence collected in response to an improper Dec. 22, 2022 subpoena.
Watson admits that 69 firearm counts were initially filed but disputes the allegation that he knowingly relied on improperly obtained evidence.
In his answer, Watson states that Pennsylvania State Police entered the defendant’s residence under a valid search warrant and found one handgun in or near the defendant’s bedroom. Police then observed a safe they believed contained additional firearms.
Watson claims he advised police to obtain a separate search warrant and court order authorizing entry into the safe. According to Watson’s answer, a state trooper later contacted the Potter County District Attorney’s Office manager and requested a subpoena to the safe manufacturer for an unlock code.
Watson claims the office manager automatically processed the subpoena without his knowledge, and that the manufacturer provided a code allowing police to open the safe, where approximately 68 additional firearms were found.
Watson states that he initially believed all firearms had been recovered pursuant to the valid search warrant. He claims that after discovering an improper subpoena had been used to access the safe, he filed an amended information on Sept. 26, 2023, dropping the 68 counts associated with the firearms found inside the safe and leaving only the single count involving the handgun recovered during the original search.
Disciplinary Counsel Alleges Multiple Rule Violations
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleges that Watson’s conduct violated numerous Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules governing:
- Competent representation;
- Bringing or maintaining legal proceedings with a valid basis in law and fact;
- Candor toward a tribunal;
- Duties in ex parte proceedings;
- Requests that third parties refrain from providing information;
- Methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of others;
- Dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and
- Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Watson denies that his conduct constituted intentional professional misconduct. His answer denies each alleged rule violation and requests dismissal of the disciplinary petition.
The petition asks that a hearing committee be appointed to receive evidence, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommend any disciplinary action it determines appropriate.
No final determination regarding the allegations is contained in either filing.
