Washington State: Bank and motel records are “private affairs” and not subject to a mere subpoena or police inspection

Washington finds a securities investigation subpoena governed by “Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution [which] requires that ‘[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs … without authority of law.'” State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236, 156 P.3d 864 (2007).

The information sought here potentially reveals sensitive personal information. Private bank records may disclose what the citizen buys, how often, and from whom. They can disclose what political, recreational, and religious organizations a citizen supports. They potentially disclose where the citizen travels, their affiliations, reading materials, television viewing habits, financial condition, and more. Little doubt exists that banking records, because of the type of information contained, are within a person’s private affairs.

We turn next to whether there was authority of law supporting the issuance of the subpoena to Miles’ bank. The trial court held that the statute did not provide authority of law. We agree.

Washington State also holds that same day that a police officer’s random check of a motel registry was an invasion of privacy. State v. Jorden, 160 Wn.2d 121, 156 P.3d 893 (2007).

Comment: These are valuable opinions if one’s state constitution has the power that Washington’s does. Their constitution protects “private affairs” and that can be a big difference.

Officer who validly stopped the defendant developed reasonable suspicion from contradictory answers from the occupants. United States v. Martinez, 230 Fed. Appx. 808 (10th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).

Defendant’s probation search was valid, and the probation officer developed reasonable suspicion defendant possessed a sword, a dangerous weapon. United States v. Klein, 228 Fed. Appx. 787 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).

Plaintiff nursing home was a closely regulated business subject to inspection, and it could not show that it was maliciously targeted for a search by the regulators. Golden Years Homestead Inc. v. Buckland, 466 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (S.D. Ind. 2006):

In light of our review of the arguments presented by both parties and the exhibits submitted by each side, while construing all facts in the light most favorable to Golden Years, we hold that a reasonable fact-finder could not find that the ISDH Defendants conducted their surveys in an unreasonable manner so as to give rise to a Fourth Amendment claim. As described above, Blue and Beverly hold that a nursing facility has, at most, a very attenuated expectation of privacy meriting Fourth Amendment protection, and that regulatory inspections ordinarily do not offend any existing right. Thus, a search would have to be unreasonable in manner or effect–that is, outside the statutory and regulatory guidelines–in order to support relief under the Fourth Amendment. See our Entry of March 30, 2004. We are unpersuaded that a reasonable jury could ever so find in this case.