United States v. Miller (1976)
United States v. Miller | |
---|---|
Holding | |
Bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens |
Dissent | Brennan |
Dissent | Marshall |
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a
Background
In 1973, sheriffs for Houston County, Georgia discovered an undocumented whiskey distillery, first by seizing a truck with distillery equipment and arresting its drivers, and later investigating a warehouse fire in the town of Kathleen and discovering distillery equipment there. They identified the warehouse property leaser as Mitch Miller of Georgia. The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau (ATF) of the United States Treasury Department, investigating the case, requested that local banks, holding Miller's accounts, provide all paperwork of his bank transactions to date via a grand jury subpoena duces tecum, rather than a warrant; the banks complied without notifying Miller. The financial records supported evidence that Miller had rented the truck, radio equipment, and sheet metal to support the distillery, and he and four others were charged with conspiracy (by selling tax-free whiskey), possession of distilled spirits, and possession of an unregistered still.
The trial was held at the
Supreme Court
The government petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their appeal, asking whether the privacy rights of the Fourth Amendment covered the method that the ATF had acquired the bank records. Oral arguments were presented on January 12, 1976, with a decision issued on April 21, 1976.
The majority decision was given by Justice Lewis Powell, with all but Justices Brennan and Marshall joining, reversing the Fifth Circuit's decision. Powell determined that the bank records were not the private papers of Miller, but instead owned by the banks as part of its necessary business operations. Reiterating points made in California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, Powell stated that there is no expectation of privacy that a customer of a bank has when they do business through the bank, as checks, deposit slips and other paperwork are elements of commercial transactions. The Supreme Court remanded Miller's case back to the Fifth Circuit.
Justice
Impact
United States v. Miller, along with Smith v. Maryland,[6] which dealt with the privacy of telephone records, established the concept of a third-party doctrine that has been used by the courts to determine to what extent Fourth Amendment protection expectation of privacy covers. This doctrine generally finds that information that a person provides voluntarily to a third-party no longer is covered by expectation of privacy, and the government can obtain such information without a warrant.[7]
See also
References
- ^ United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).
- ^ California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974).
- ^ Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
- F.2d 588(5th Cir. 1975).
- ^ Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 238, 529 P.2d 590 (1974).
- ^ Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
- ^ Villasenor, John (December 30, 2013). "What You Need to Know about the Third-Party Doctrine". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
External links
- Text of United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)