|
|
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)
United States v. Miller No. 74-1179 Argued January 12, 1976 Decided April 21, 1976 425 U.S. 435
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent, who had been charged with various federal offenses, made a pretrial motion to suppress microfilms of checks, deposit slips, and other records relating to his accounts at two banks, which maintained the records pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (Act). He contended that the subpoenas duces tecum pursuant to which the material had been produced by the banks were defective, and that the records had thus been illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Following denial of his motion, respondent was tried and convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, having concluded that the subpoenaed documents fell within a constitutionally protected zone of privacy.
Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Pp. 440-446.
(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not respondent’s private papers. Pp. 440-441.
(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities. The Act’s recordkeeping requirements do not alter . these considerations so as to create a protectable Fourth Amendment interest of a bank depositor in the bank’s records of his account. Pp. 441-443.
(c) Issuance of a subpoena to a third party does not violate a defendant’s rights, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 53. Pp. 444-445.
(d) Access to bank records under the Act is to be controlled by "existing legal process." That does not mean that greater judicial scrutiny, equivalent to that required for a search warrant, is necessary when a subpoena is used to obtain a depositor’s bank records. Pp. 445-446.
500 F.2d 751, reversed and remanded.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., post, p. 447, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 455, filed dissenting opinions.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) in 425 U.S. 435 425 U.S. 436. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=L45SZU7KKIU5B85.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), in 425 U.S. 435, page 425 U.S. 436. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=L45SZU7KKIU5B85.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). cited in 1976, 425 U.S. 435, pp.425 U.S. 436. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=L45SZU7KKIU5B85.
|