A disciplinary proceeding filed before the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania alleges that
Potter County District Attorney Andy Joseph Watson improperly used investigative subpoenas over a period
spanning more than a decade. In a formal response filed through counsel, Watson disputes allegations of
intentional misconduct while acknowledging that the subpoena practice occurred and was later discontinued after
being challenged.
According to the Petition for Discipline, Watson and the Potter County District Attorney’s Office allegedly used
subpoenas directed at third parties during criminal investigations even when no active criminal case was pending
before the court. The petition asserts that the subpoenas were issued under “miscellaneous” docket captions and
were used to obtain information including phone records, financial information, medical records, employment
records, surveillance footage, and other confidential materials.
The petition further alleges that recipients of the subpoenas would have believed they were valid court-authorized
demands for information and that some subpoenas were accompanied by nondisclosure agreements instructing
recipients not to inform the subject of the investigation. The filing contends that these practices misrepresented
the legal authority behind the requests and failed to comply with Pennsylvania legal procedures governing
investigative records requests.
In his Answer to the Petition, Watson admits that many subpoenas using miscellaneous captions were issued
between 2010 and 2022 while he served as District Attorney. However, he denies intentionally misleading
subpoena recipients or knowingly violating professional rules. Watson states that the use of investigative
subpoenas was a longstanding practice in Potter County that predated his tenure as District Attorney and had
also been used by prior administrations.
Watson’s filing states that before December 2022 he did not believe the practice was improper because it had
historically been used within the office and, according to his response, had not previously been challenged by the
judiciary or defense attorneys. The response also notes that motions to compel compliance with such subpoenas
had previously been presented to the court without objections being raised about the underlying practice.

The disciplinary petition alleges that the office’s use of subpoenas and accompanying nondisclosure language
improperly suggested that recipients were “ordered by the Court” to comply and prohibited from notifying the
individuals whose information was sought. Watson disputes portions of those allegations, stating that
nondisclosure agreements were not included with every subpoena and that some recipients themselves
requested confidentiality agreements and supplied template language later used by the office.
The filing also addresses concerns raised in the petition that subpoena records and responsive confidential
materials may have been accessible through court filing systems. Watson acknowledges that subpoenas
themselves would have appeared in miscellaneous docket files but denies knowledge that responsive
confidential materials were routinely filed in those records.
A significant portion of both filings focuses on a criminal case involving a defendant identified as Foulkrod. The
disciplinary petition alleges that Watson improperly relied on evidence obtained through an investigative
subpoena after discussions with the court regarding the discontinuation of the practice. Specifically, the petition
claims that Watson filed 69 firearms-related counts in March 2023 based in part on information acquired through
a subpoena sent to a gun safe manufacturer.
Watson’s response provides a different account of the incident. According to the Answer, Pennsylvania State
Police initially executed a valid search warrant and located a handgun in the residence. Officers later discovered
a gun safe and contacted Watson for guidance. Watson states that he advised investigators to obtain an
additional search warrant and court authorization to open the safe. His filing asserts that, without his knowledge,
a state trooper contacted the District Attorney’s Office manager to request a subpoena to the safe manufacturer,
which was then processed and used to obtain an access code.

Watson acknowledges that he later filed charges involving firearms found inside the safe but states that he
initially believed the evidence had been obtained solely through lawful warrant procedures. According to the
response, once he later learned that a subpoena had been used to gain access to the safe, he amended the
criminal information and dropped 68 of the 69 firearm counts, leaving only one count tied to evidence allegedly
recovered under the original search warrant.
The petition accuses Watson of violating several Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules
related to candor to the tribunal, fairness to opposing parties, misuse of legal process, and conduct involving
dishonesty or misrepresentation.
Watson denies violating those rules and maintains that any improper subpoena use resulted from reliance on a
longstanding local practice rather than intentional misconduct. His filing states that once concerns about the
practice were raised, he investigated the matter, confirmed the procedure was improper, and immediately
discontinued the use of subpoenas for investigatory matters.
The disciplinary matter remains pending before the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.