## Facts

- Wesley S. Burrows, an attorney, was suspected of misappropriating client funds connected to child-support payments.
- Burrows represented Harold D. Miller, who was ordered to pay $50 per month to his former wife, June Trower.
- Miller reported that Burrows instructed him to send support payments to Burrows for forwarding, and that Miller paid from June through December 1971, but Trower and the court trustee received none.
- Burrows’s secretary reported learning from the office bookkeeper that Miller’s checks were deposited into Burrows’s trust account and not paid out to Trower.
- A judge issued a warrant authorizing a search of Burrows’s office for specified financial records and documents related to Miller, Trower, and related persons; officers searched the office and Burrows’s automobile under that warrant.
- Separately, a detective contacted banks where Burrows maintained accounts and obtained photostatic copies of Burrows’s account statements without a warrant, subpoena, or other court process.
- Bank representatives testified that customer account records were generally treated as confidential.
- Burrows was charged with grand theft and moved to suppress evidence from the office, automobile, and banks; the trial court denied the motion, and Burrows sought mandate relief.

## Issues

1. Whether obtaining a depositor’s bank statements directly from the bank, without legal process, constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under article I, section 13 of the California Constitution.
2. Whether the warrant-authorized searches of Burrows’s office and automobile were supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular to permit admission of the seized items.

## Decision

- The court held that a bank customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in bank account records under the California Constitution.
- Law enforcement’s warrantless, process-free acquisition of Burrows’s bank statements from his banks was an unreasonable search and seizure, requiring suppression of the bank records.
- The court upheld the searches of Burrows’s office and automobile because the warrant was adequately supported and sufficiently particular in describing the items to be seized.
- The court issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to vacate its suppression ruling and to grant suppression as to the bank records, while leaving intact the evidence obtained under the warrant.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution protects a depositor’s reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, even though the records are held by the bank.
- Disclosure of information to a bank for ordinary banking purposes does not, by itself, eliminate the depositor’s privacy interest against law-enforcement access for investigative purposes.
- Police must use lawful process (such as a warrant or appropriate subpoena) to obtain bank account records when the depositor has a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
- Warrantless acquisition of such records, absent justification, is an unreasonable search and seizure and triggers exclusion of the records.
- A search warrant for business records is valid when supported by sworn information establishing probable cause and when it particularly describes the records sought and their connection to the suspected offense.

## Conclusion

The court required suppression of bank records obtained from a bank without legal process because depositors have a state-constitutional privacy interest in those records, but it permitted use of evidence seized from the attorney’s office and automobile under a sufficiently supported and particular warrant.


Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 238, 529 P.2d 590, 118 Cal. Rptr. 166 (Cal. 1974)