United States v. Miller

1976-04-21

Headline: Court rules that bank customers lack a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in records kept by banks, allowing government subpoenas of bank‑maintained records to be used in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Holding: The Court held that a depositor has no protected Fourth Amendment interest in bank records kept by banks under the Bank Secrecy Act, so subpoenas served on banks do not entitle the depositor to suppression of those records.

Real World Impact:

Permits subpoenas to obtain bank‑maintained records for criminal investigations.
Reduces privacy protection for bank customers' account information held by banks.
Leaves disputes about seized physical evidence for lower courts to resolve.

Topics: bank records, financial privacy, subpoenas, criminal investigations

Summary

Background

A man accused of running an illegal distillery, Mitch Miller, had copies of checks and other bank records taken from two banks where he kept accounts. The banks had kept those records under the Bank Secrecy Act. Treasury agents served subpoenas on the banks, obtained microfilm copies and other documents without notifying Miller, and used some copies as investigation leads and at trial. The trial court denied Miller's motion to suppress the records, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a bank customer has a protected privacy interest in records that banks keep and control. The majority explained that the subpoenaed material were the banks’ business records, not the customer’s private papers. The opinion said customers voluntarily convey account information to banks and that prior cases and the Bank Secrecy Act assume no legitimate expectation of privacy in such bank-held records. Because the depositor had no Fourth Amendment interest in those bank records, the Court held he could not block their use by challenging subpoenas served on the banks, and it reversed the Court of Appeals.

Real world impact

The decision means prosecutors can generally obtain and use records kept by banks under the Bank Secrecy Act via subpoenas without a Fourth Amendment suppression claim by the depositor. The Court did not resolve whether the subpoenas were defective in form or other separate legal questions, and it remanded the case for consideration of the separate seizure of distillery equipment.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing depositors do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in bank statements; one dissenter would have treated the Bank Secrecy Act or the subpoenas as constitutionally problematic and affirmed the appeals court.