UT: While bank records are constitutionally private, once properly disclosed in an investigation, privacy is gone

Bank records of a nonprofit allegedly funneling money to candidates for office were subpoenaed by the state, but no prosecution was brought. Then a public records request was filed for the bank records. There was no overriding privacy interest in the records after their initial disclosure compelled by law. Work product privilege as to two records was recognized. Utah does recognize a state constitutional privacy interest in bank records, but that succumbs to the public records request because there’s no statute exempting them. Schroeder v. Utah AG’s Office, 2015 UT 77, 2015 Utah LEXIS 225 (August 25, 2015):

¶22 Article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution does provide citizens in our state with a measure of privacy. But its protections are not absolute, and it does not accord bank records special status over other personal information. Rather, section 14 recognizes the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Like the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we have recognized that this provision prohibits state actors from unreasonably intruding into areas where citizens have a legitimate expectation of privacy. A state intrusion is not unreasonable, however, when the state acts under a valid warrant or subpoena.