In People v. Investigation Into Certain Weapon, 113 Misc. 2d 348 [1982]), the court was presented with a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum seeking the production of all tangible property relating to an automatic pistol, including ammunition and an ammunition clip. The underlying allegation involved a charge that a defendant, armed with two guns, had attempted to kill a police officer during the course of a robbery. One of the guns was later found but without its ammunition clip and bullets. The District Attorney maintained that the attorney for defendant had possession of these items and a subpoena was served upon him requiring their production. The attorney, while acknowledging possession of these items, moved to quash that subpoena upon the ground that any of the property received by him was the result of privileged communications between attorney and client. The court rejected the arguments of counsel finding that any issue regarding privilege gave way to an attorney's professional responsibilities when he is in possession of parts of a pistol which may have been involved in the commission of a crime. The court (at 352), acknowledging that it was an abuse of a lawyer's professional duties to knowingly take possession of and secrete the instrumentalities of a crime, stated that "[t]he attorney-client privilege is not a cloak which permits either the defendant or his attorney to withhold evidence of criminality." The court continued that "otherwise instrumentalities and fruits of crime would be beyond the reach of the law by the mere fact that a defendant turned them over to an attorney" (People v. Investigation Into Certain Weapon, supra at 352). The court concluded that public policy requires that the tangible property, "for which there are reasonable grounds to believe may have been involved in a crime, should be made available to the Grand Jury for its investigation." (Id.)