State v. Adame, 476 P.3d 872

Ismael and Angela Adame, a married couple and Taos business owners, were investigated for suspected drug trafficking.
A federal grand jury subpoenaed the Adames’ bank records; a New Mexico state grand jury later issued subpoenas duces tecum for five years of the Adames’ financial records (checking, savings, loans, safe-deposit box, CDs, wire transfers, credit-card and related records).
State and federal-obtained bank records were used to return multiple-count indictments; most charges were financial in nature.
The Adames moved to suppress the bank records under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, arguing those records are protected and require a warrant supported by probable cause.
The district court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New Mexico Supreme Court: (1) whether Article II, Section 10 protects financial records held by banks, and (2) whether use of grand jury subpoenas by the State unreasonably intruded on any such interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article II, §10 protects bank records maintained by a financial institution	State: No reasonable expectation of privacy in records voluntarily shared with banks; federal third-party doctrine controls	Adame: Article II, §10 provides greater privacy protection than the Fourth Amendment and requires a warrant to obtain bank records	Held: No. Article II, §10 does not recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Adames’ five years of bank records voluntarily shared with banks; suppression denied.
Whether the State’s use of federal and state grand jury subpoenas in a state criminal proceeding unreasonably intruded on any such privacy interest	State: Use of subpoenas was lawful and their evidence may be used in state prosecution	Adame: Subpoenas are an unreasonable intrusion on the asserted Article II, §10 privacy interest	Held: Not reached. Because no protected privacy interest was found, the court did not decide whether the subpoenas were an unreasonable intrusion.

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1976) (no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in bank records held by banks)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (narrowed third-party doctrine for certain digital location data but reaffirmed Miller for conventional bank records)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (application of third-party doctrine to dialed phone numbers)
State v. Crane, 329 P.3d 689 (N.M. 2014) (recognition under Article II, §10 that a subjective expectation of privacy is required and garbage-in-opaque-bags protected)
State v. Granville, 142 P.3d 933 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (warrantless search of sealed garbage in alley impermissible under Article II, §10)