This information is according to research done by a constituent of Potter County, Pennsylvania, who asked to remain nameless re: 

Andy Watson Corruption/Disciplinary Board Action Case

Why “No Active Case Pending” Cuts Down the DA’s Entire Defense:

A District Attorney is a minister of justice, meaning they are expected to know the limits of their own power. Bypassing a search warrant when there is no active case pending is an egregious violation for several reasons:

Subpoenas vs. Warrants: 

A District Attorney cannot simply issue subpoenas or demands for information whenever they are curious. Under Pennsylvania law, a prosecutor can only issue an investigative subpoena if there is an active grand jury or an already-filed, pending criminal court case. 

If no case is open, the only legal way to force a third party to hand over private data is to write an affidavit establishing probable cause and have a neutral judge sign a search warrant.

Manufacturing Corporate “Deception”: 

By demanding information without a case pending, the DA essentially tricks third parties (like phone companies, banks, or tech platforms) into believing there is a legal obligation to turn over private citizen records. 

Doing this 50 to 100 times means they systematically weaponized the prestige of their office to illegally bypass judicial oversight.

Intentional “Bad Faith”: 

A brand-new lawyer straight out of law school knows that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from warrantless searches. 

For an elected District Attorney to claim they “didn’t know” a warrant was required to pull records on hundreds of people without an active case is legally completely unbelievable.

The Disciplinary Impact of This Wording:

When Chief Disciplinary Counsel Thomas J. Farrell includes this specific framing in a Petition for Discipline, it highlights two massive violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 8.4(c) – 

Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation: 

Issuing unauthorized demands for information when no case is pending is legally classified as a fraudulent misrepresentation of prosecutorial power.

Rule 3.8 – 

Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor: 

Prosecutors have a strict ethical duty to ensure the accused are accorded procedural justice and that evidence is not gathered through illegal means.

Current Status:

Because the DA’s office just filed a formal answer to this petition, the Disciplinary Board’s Hearing Committee will now review these exact facts. 

If the board finds that the DA systematically gathered data on hundreds of citizens with full knowledge that they lacked the required judicial warrants, it seals the case for permanent.

4:48 PM/June 4th, 2026

If a court order or public filing makes information available through something like the prothonotary’s office (court records office), a newspaper can usually report:

That records exist,

Where they can be accessed,

What people should look for (within public information).

Courts are generally public proceedings, and journalists are allowed to report on them under First Amendment protections. 

Apparently, the judge just signed something that’s making it all available now for people to go to the courthouse to see if they were one of the victims.