Facts
- Federal investigators in Georgia pursued an illicit whiskey operation involving an unregistered still and related tax offenses.
- A grand jury issued subpoenas duces tecum to two banks seeking microfilmed checks, deposit slips, and related account records connected to Mitchell Miller.
- The banks produced the requested records without notifying Miller.
- Miller moved to suppress the records, arguing the subpoenas were defective and that obtaining the records violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied suppression; Miller was convicted.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the subpoenaed bank documents fell within a protected zone of privacy.
Issues
- Whether a bank customer has a legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in bank records maintained by the bank, such that the customer may challenge grand jury subpoenas directed to the bank for those records.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held Miller had no legitimate Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records obtained from the banks.
- Because Miller lacked a protected interest in the records, the subpoenas did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights and suppression was not warranted.
Legal Principles
- A depositor generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a bank’s business records reflecting the depositor’s transactions.
- Information voluntarily conveyed to a third party in the ordinary course of business may be obtained from that third party through legal process without violating the depositor’s Fourth Amendment rights.
- Checks and deposit slips used in commercial transactions are not treated as confidential communications for Fourth Amendment purposes.
- Statutory bank recordkeeping requirements do not, by themselves, create a protectable Fourth Amendment interest for depositors in the bank’s retained records.
- Use of subpoenas directed to third parties is a recognized investigative method and does not require the same showing as a search warrant aimed at a person’s private premises or papers.
Conclusion
The Court held that a bank customer cannot invoke the Fourth Amendment to suppress bank records obtained by subpoena from the bank because the records are the bank’s business documents and reflect information the customer exposed to the bank in ordinary transactions.