A subpoena is an order from a judge to appear at a hearing. If you want someone to testify for you at your hearing and are concerned about whether the person will come, you should ask the judge for a subpoena. If you get a subpoena and deliver it properly, the judge will require the person to appear.
A subpoena duces tecum is a special type of subpoena. It requires a person to bring certain documents, like business records, bank records, medical records, or government records, to a hearing. These are just examples; you may subpoena any document that is relevant to your case. If you want someone to bring documents to your hearing, you should ask the judge for a subpoena duces tecum. If you get a subpoena duces tecum and deliver it properly, the judge will require the documents to be produced.
Search and Seizure
To be valid under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must, inter alia, “particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. Amend.
IV. The purpose of this particularity requirement is to avoid “a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627, 96 S. Ct.
2737 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); generally see Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 481-
85, 13 L. Ed. 2d 431, 85 S. Ct. 506 (1965) (describing history and purpose of particularity requirement).
A sufficiently particular warrant describes the items to be seized so that it leaves nothing to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 72 L. Ed. 231, 48 S. Ct. 74 (1927). Although the Court ordinarily would begin its review of the decision of the district court by determining whether it erred in concluding the warrant failed to particularize the items to be seized adequately, the Court need not address that question even if the warrant was invalid where the evidence obtained during the search nevertheless was admissible according to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. See _ the United States v. Leon_, 468 U.S. 897, 913, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984).