Stark v. Connally

deny- be, performance they are restrained terfere with the partic- ing plaintiffs full attendance and duties. regular ipation for and credit in and day The on before issue arises Army application of the drills insofar as ap- plaintiffs hour zero when will challenge regulations con- under pear compliance in vio- either in with or cerned. regulations. wig Notice lation of the given Attor- United was States hearing.

ney, appeared who for the allege Army has a Plaintiffs of their claim on a little over 1% spent time time in summer outside the camp; Army’s demand wigs military they not when no wear in- is an unwarranted reason is shown essen- terference with their life which is Fortney Plaintiffs, Jr., al., STARK, H. et tially beyond scope of civilian and v. authority under defendants CONNALLY, Jr., Secretary of John B. furthermore, They contend, the law. Treasury States, regulation invidiously discrimi- al., et Defendants. nates between who are scarred reservists naturally bald the one hand The CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSO- plaintiffs de- reservists like the whose CIATION, Plaintiff, which, flowing fect is a head of locks v. keloids, like baldness or can be success- CONNALLY, Jr., John B. wig. fully effectively by a concealed Treasury of the United facie, complaint Prima states al., et Defendants. ground harm valid relief. The 72-1045, Nos. 72-1157. great threatened, illegal alleged, Court, United States District irreparable long claim alle- as we N. D. California. recognizes giance to a constitution which Sept. 11, 1972. beings. dignity of individual human limited, Time for but research has been among court has read other authori- Tenney opinion Judge

ties the recent District Southern District of New York Kaine, the case of Harris Vaccarino Resor, Southern District Civil 29, 1972, per- 1704, dated June and finds suasive out the essential reasons set Judge support Tenney in of the restrain- order entered him in a similar case. Clerk is directed to set the case hearing non-jury on a calendar as early practically in the future as can

arranged. are, of The defendants

course, sixty days customary allowed the plead

in which to answer otherwise Meanwhile, move. ordered, It is defendants and agents officers, all their servants and Marson,

Henry Ramsey, Jr., Charles C. Sheehan, Liberties Peter American Civil Foundation of Northern Cali- Union fornia, Francisco, Cal., Inc., San Oakland, Horton, Solomon, Neil Deene plaintiffs Cal., for others. Stark and Anderson, Diamond, Philip John M. E. Edgar Landels, Ripley Washburn, & B. Francisco, plain- Diamond, Cal., for San Assn. tiff California Bankers Atty., Browning, Jr., L. U. S. James Atty., Youngquist, U. Asst. S. John M. Francisco, Div., Cal., Chief, Tax San Litiga- Chief, McCarthy, J. John General Justice, Div., Dept, Section, tion Tax Con- Washington, C., for defendants D. nally and others. DECISION MEMORANDUMOF Judge, HAMLIN,* Circuit Before Judges. SWEIGERT, District EAST and

SWEIGERT, Judge. District include 72 1045

Plaintiffs No. are individuals who several named * part. Judge Hamlin dissents deposit or customers, collection—an authorization Civil also American n implemented suing which the has Association, on behalf Liberties 103.31-103.37) (Regulation excep- and also itself customer as a bank only large involving members tions accounts such of its numerous behalf dividend, payroll' employee and medical customers; a bank also as are also bank The checks. Security benefit —the National Bank. plaintiff is the California in No. 72 1157 restraining temporary order here- suing Association, on behalf Bankers tofore issued in this case not been comprises membership, all its record-keeping provisions directed California banks. Act, and find since no constitu- we record-keeping violation in tional enjoin plaintiffs to These seek such, reject plaintiffs’ provisions, as we enforcing Treasury Secretary from of the portions those contentions insofar provisions Bank the so-called are the Act concerned. Congress Secrecy Act, by the on enacted Turning, however, reporting to the 1, 1970, May 26, October to effective provisions Act, provisions of the those are Regulations 1971, issued and the there- 1081, in contained Title 31 U.S.C. Secs. 31, (but by their under on March 1083, 1082, 1101 and and have been July 1, own terms not until effective Regulations by Treasury implemented 1972) grounds upon en- that such 103, sub-part B, 103.- C.F.R. Part grave Secs. poses irreparable forcement and provisions reporting These 21-103.26. rights— injury to their constitutional categories: (1) fall into two Those right their to from unreasonable freedom relating foreign to financial transactions search; their constitutional (Secs. 1101 and and 1121), those privacy; privilege against their self- relating to domestic financial trans ; process incrimination to due (Sec. 1081). actions may as it affect cus- banks tomers, private Since, also as- opinion, reporting in our protected by sociation the First' Amend- relating foreign to trans- ment. present great problem actions no we will dispose challenges plaintiffs’ first to Secrecy (12 The Bank Act See. U.S.C. provisions. those 1829b; 1051-1122) re- Secs. U.S.C. quires similar financial REPORTING FI- OF FOREIGN keep institutions to certain records NANCIAL TRANSACTIONS Secretary Treasury authorizes of the require (Reports persons 31 U.S.C. such institutions and Sec. participating Exports Imports Monetary Instru- transactions such with ments) provides report institutions financial trans- substance who- Secretary knowingly monetary transports actions to the ever in- for the stated (Sec. 1051) reason that such struments or into records and United States reports high degree have United States or receives at the of usefulness regulatory criminal, transportation tax and other termination investigations. exceeding United amount $5,000 report shall file a in such form record-keeping provision of the Secretary may require and detail as the Act is implemented 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1829b— (sub. setting b) specified forth certain Regulation Treasury 31 C.F.R. sub- qualifications information —with certain part C, Secs. Section 103.31-103.37. c) (sub. as to common carriers. 1829b(b) (c) (d) broadly requires finan- Regulation (Reports cial maintain, institutions of Trans- 103.23 customary ledger portation Currency Monetary card or In- for com- records savings struments), 1101, accounts, implementing mercial and also Section but through cheeks, excepts maintain microfilm of transfers normal all bank- ing procedures or some drafts similar and makes other instruments drawn presented c). payment exceptions (sub. for for or received foreign powers (Foreign stitutional where Trans- 31 U.S.C. Sec. See, v. United involved. United States Court, actions) provides in substance having 297, pp. Treasury, due Secretary of the States District 2125, controlling export L. regard p. the need for currency (1972). import also due re- and gard Ed.2d unreasonably avoidance proce- Furthermore, Act contains legitimate burdening with protections provi- applicable to its dural foreign agencies, shall financial foreign reporting trans- sions regulation require of the residents respect example, For actions. States, engage transaction who the Act enforcement Section foreign agency, to with a main- financial 1105) that, (Section provides if the both, reports, tain records file believe has reason setting forth such certain stated being monetary instruments are trans- Secretary may re- information as the quire. ported or with false without (See 1122). also, Sec. reports, apply he Similarly, Regulation 103.24, implementing with re- a search spect Sec- warrant. 1121(b) provides tion person subject that each enforcement Section substance (foreign jurisdiction transactions) pro- section having pe'rson required to maintain inter- vides that financial under the shall be re- bank, in a section est securities foreign report produce country, quired disclose the same shall account in a relationship required except duly subpoena his such on with authorized required may or summons as be otherwise federal income tax return. by law. opinion por- We are of that these dealing provisions export We these

tions of the with conclude Act, guarantee monetary import violate no that, and and constitutional instruments foreign requiring provisions, monetary ac- since these with interests or foreign report counts, any not constitutional certain trans- do violate financial actions, provi- clearly separable provision. from are pertaining reporting sions to the general all, First rule there is the transactions, plain- domestic financial (which point always must be preliminary injunc- tiffs’ motion calling judicial departure in cases tion as is denied. former legislation by the review enacted Con- gress), legislation and that the wisdom of FI- REPORTING DOMESTIC OF the need for it matters for the Con- TRANSACTIONS NANCIAL gress to should not and the Courts decide judgment substitute problem present- more formidable A Congress. (See, dissent Justice Stewart authorizing by provisions the Act’s ed Connecticut, Griswold 381 U.S. Secretary require reporting himto at 85 S.Ct. 526.) 14 L.Ed.2d 510 by institutions, by and also financial foregoing reporting provi- The persons participating in transactions sions of Act are limited to narrow- them, financial trans- of domestic with ly described area of international fi- actions. Congression- nancial transactions and (Domestic Curren- Sec. U.S.C. general al rule. decision falls within the cy Transaction-Reports) provides that Court, dealing involving any The in- when financial transactions reporting reported matters to and surveillance be Secre- stitution shall by recog- manner, traditionally the executive, tary has in such at such time Secretary may nized detail, a distinction between domestic in such as the surveillance, hand, they payment, re- require, the one surveil- involve foreign involved, lance where ceipt nations are curren- or United States transfer instruments, pointing might monetary cy out that what im- or other be such permissible may Secretary may specify, in domestic in such cases be con- as the parties partici- denominations, both, amounts, or un- other or or pants. circumstances, the Secre- der such tary by regulation prescribe. shall reporting These of the Act along report provides that must be considered with other Section general signed provisions, g., any transaction shall be e. Section such Secretary by power which vests or the domestic broad otherwise made both prescribe regulations may by as he involved and institutions parties carry appropriate pur- thereto deem one or of the other to- more out poses Secretary Act; participants also under or therein as Section may Secretary may require. make and revoke exemptions require- Act’s Regulation (Reports Cur- 103.22 may appropriate; ments as he these deem rency Transactions), partially exemptions may uncon- conditional or implements sections, requires fi- these by ditional, regulation by by or order report nancial institutions to transactions licensing, may particu- they relate involving currency of than more $10.- particular parties. lar transactions or Secretary broadly implemented has that, although It will be noted date Regulation authorizations his Secretary reporting only required 103.45, providing his sole discre- by the financial institutions and then excep- may by tion he order make written only currency $10,- transactions over exemptions impose tions additional empowered by Act, he is as indi- reporting record-keeping requirements above, decides, cated require, if he so by authorized the statute or otherwise only not the financial in- modify regula- requirements of the stitution, parties but to or also tions. participants in- transactions with the Further, provides Section and, further, stitutions Secre- Treasury shall, upon tary may require reports, of cur- procedures such conditions and as he rency any but trans- regulation prescribe, make in- involving any monetary instru- action required formation in the set .forth large ment —and in amount — reports available, any purpose con- small. Act, sistent of the the Since, noted, already as the record- any agency request. to other federal at its keeping provisions require of the Act provi- is whether checks, to banks microfilm all or drafts sions, broadly authorizing an executive present- similar instruments drawn on or government agency require of to finan- deposit ed to or received or collection parties par- cial institutions and to by bank, noted, since, a the as Secre- ticipants them, to in transactions with tary may require reporting only by not routinely report it, previous to without bank, to, parties the but also the other judicial summons, or administrative sub- participants transaction, in, poena warrant, the detail of almost required include, report can not every conceivable as financial transaction bank’s usual record its customer’s discovery a surveillance for the device account, but also such information as is possible wrongdoing part on the of bank disclosed on the face back of customers, is such an a invasion of check, monetary draft or similar instru- privacy citizen’s amounts e., concerning ment —i. information an unreasonable search within the mean- identity persons, organi- of the firms or ing of the Fourth Amendment.1 zations with whom the drawer has chosen thing further, to deal and, That such additional there is such a aas con- “right stitutionally protected privacy” “detail” “as recognized require” has been Supreme from both anyone report upon peril prose It be so will that who refuses to does so noted criminal cution under Section 1058.

1247 person a an actual that have exhibited v. such Griswold Con in cases as Court and, (subjective) expectation privacy 1678, 14 479, 85 S.Ct. necticut, 381 U.S. second, expectation one that that be (1965); United Katz v. 510 L.Ed.2d recognize 507, society prepared ‘rea- States, 347, 19 389 U.S. recently (1967) in sonable’.” and most L.Ed.2d 576 United District United v. States States States v. In the recent case United Court, 297, 2125, 32 92 407 S.Ct. U.S. 407 U.S. Court, District United States (1972).1(a) L.Ed.2d 2125, 297, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Court, (1972) Supreme consider- supra, States, v. In Katz United legal presidential a claim of holding government Court, Supreme telephone (with- tap wire conversations eavesdropping violated approval) neces- out court when deemed privacy upon person a relied while sary attempts protect nation from telephone using public an otherwise organizations to of domestic attack and booth, Amendment “The Fourth said: existing government, its form of subvert places. per- protects a people, not What again unanimously held that the Fourth public, knowingly exposes even son Amendment shields a conversation subject office, is a in his own home govern- surveillance; See, protection. Fourth Amendment safeguard duty ment’s domestic States, 206, 210 Lewis United v. U.S. against weighed security must 17 L.Ed.2d 312] S.Ct. [87 danger potential unreasonable Lee, (1966); U.S. pose privacy; surveillances to individual 746, 748, L.Ed. [47 S.Ct. Amendment freedoms can- Fourth (1927). pre- he But what seeks 1202] guaranteed properly not be if domestic private, area serve as even acces- security conducted sole- surveillances are public may sible be constitutional- ly within the discretion of the executive ly protected. See Rios v. judgment branch without detached 4 L.Ed.2d U.S. 253 S.Ct. [80 magistrate, especially re- a neutral when Jackson, parte (1960); Ex 1688] procedure appropriate sort warrant . . L.Ed. . 733 [24 877] legitimate adequately would serve No than an business individual a less purposes security searches. domestic office, apartment, or in a a friend’s person taxicab, telephone Young, supra, City a booth In Carmel v. may rely protection citing Court, on the Fourth Supreme California occupies it, Amendment. principle One who shuts laid down pays him, the door behind the toll Con- United States Griswold v. permits call, surely place him to necticut, re- supra, held that statute entitled assume that ut- quiring public the words he and candidates officials mouthpiece public ters into the will not be investments office disclose although To broadcast to $10,000, the world. read the Con- a laudable excess narrowly ignore stitution more is the legislative pos- proper with concern and public telephone public vital role that conflicting the sible interests play private come to servants, was, nevertheless, communication.” in- invalid privacy pro- upon trusion the J., Harlan, concurring pp. at 389 U.S. by tected the Fourth Amendment. 360-361, p. 516, at “My privacy, principle what is meant added: the constitutional laid Does understanding of the rule is the in the ... down above requirement, present that apply there a twofold first ease where the cases the also, 1(a). McMillan, ; Time, Inc., (1939) See Doe v. 143 284 Dietmann v. 586 City App.D.C. (C.D.Cal.1966) ; (1971) ; F.Supp. 442 F.2d 925 879 Story, (9th Young, 2 Cal. York v. 324 F.2d 250 85 Cir. Carmel v. Cal.3d 1963) ; (1970) ; Wilson, Rptr. 1, Brex v. Zimmermann v. 81 F.2d 466 P.2d 225 (3d (New Jersey 1929). 1936). see, Smith, Cir. But 146 A. (1938), F.Supp. aff’d 105 F.2d government (3) legal agency to main- and the government was claims seek- ing surveillance, records without sum- claimed to be relevant routine tain warrant, the mons, subpoena specific over material to a matter then under inquiry, e., particu- i. financial the correctness of a of citizens’ details taxpayer’s lar financial institu- and similar return. broadly purpose of stated the tions for operation In the the fi- domestic agencies the helping executive reporting provisions nancial transaction investigate, only tax government not of the in question, Act here none of these un- matters, other but also and criminal specified “regulatory present. elements investigations” ? power of the under question Act in require reports is not note we must At the outset limited to the bank’s own or to records holdings circuits this thereon, information g., based e. and their between banks communications ledger bank’s card record of the state privileged are not communica customers deposit customer’s account own its term; of that sense tions in technical slips passbook already rights As entries. have no customers bank indicated, goes the Act much further to records; may be records that such bank mandatory authorize the disclosure of subpoenaed bank, over even information obtainable from microfilm- objection depositor, notwithstand ing checks in- also detail drafts ing concern the fact that the records required parties formation from the account; that customers have customer’s participants in each transaction. standing subpoenas object re no produce necessary quiring pass their We do it consider upon accounts and the technical customer’s whether cus- checks, production by such, its records bank of tomer’s property become customer, subpoena not, during banking under as to the the bank illegal process. note, however, either Fourth search We Aihendment do that banks traditionally returned, and seizure nor Fifth Amendment self- have either direct- States, ly through clearing house, incrimination. Harris v. all also, 1969). (9th original 413 F.2d 316 Cir. See checks each month to the drawer Galbraith v. 387 F.2d It seem checks. would reasona- 1968); Cole, (10th Application therefore, Cir. ble for the drawer a check (2d 1965); regard De F.2d Cir. Masters himself as real owner of (9th cheeks, only Arend, subject F.2d Cir. his to normal bank- 1963). processing, expect and to de- only tailed shown information on the seems, therefore, It cus- that bank face of his checks will not be automat- recognizable tomers have ically throughout o,f broadcast the vast merely privacy claim invasion government bureaucracy without at least government agency, by because sum- notice, subpoena summons, some or war- subpoena, requires mons produce a bank legitimate rant in connection with some pertain- the bank’s own records pending inquiry. ing to the customer’s financial trans- Certainly, actions. least, at a bank cus reasonably expects privacy tomer cerning con noted, however, It will be personal of his enunciating details cases rule this all involved affairs not shown on either (1) the bank’s government situations own records or agency seeking the face the cus was the bank’s own tomer’s checks and which must dis account, records of the customer’s only report required closed government agency was follow- customer, himself, party bank as or a to procedures obtaining established for participant in a financial transaction. by such judicial records means of or ad- subpoena summons, ministrative or that, war- It would seem within these rant, g., seq., 26 limitations, e. et meaning U.S.C. Sec. 7602 and within the of

1249 concerning their expect the details of customers Katz, supra, a customer does bank empowered He is degree privacy financial transactions. these of in matters a reports require peremptorily such that expectation one to is such that — — recognize routinely automatically as from society prepared to has been partici- parties and and from all “reasonable.” pants in financial without by stated As any procedure whereby the bank either Young, City in v. Carmel California may test the or the customer in advance 268, J.) (2 p. supra (Burke, 85 Cal.3d reasonableness of the demand. 232): p. “In p. 1, 466, Cal.Rptr. P.2d seq., of 7602 et the Internal Section pro- any that event we are satisfied (26 U.S.C.), already Revenue Act 1954 personal financial affairs tection one’s mentioned, procedures establish above her) spouse (or and those his Secretary Treas- whereunder against compulsory public dis- children ury, purpose of o,f the limited for ascertain- aspect the zone is an closure ing the an individual’s tax correctness of by protected privacy Fourth which is return, may person summon or liable within and which also falls Amendment person having any possession or care of rights penumbra of constitutional that relating books account business government may intrude not into person any person, to of that or showing compelling need and a absent appear produce and to such records overly that not broad” the intrusion is give testimony may as be relevant ‘neces- . “the be shown . law must inquiry. material such to, sary, merely rationally related accomplishment permissible of a procedures the ultimate Under Connecticut, policy.’ v. state Griswold enforcement of the summons can be 1678, supra, 479, 497, 85 381 U.S. S.Ct. challenged judicially controlled when 1689, 14 510. L.Ed.2d ‘The breadth by either customer- abridgment legislative must be viewed intervening taxpayer himself as an third light drastic means less party interest whose trans- achieving purpose.’ basic same Caplin, Reisman actions are involved. v. 479, Tucker, supra, 364 Shelton v. U.S. 440, 508, 84 375 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 488, 252, 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231.” S.Ct. (1964).2 challenged pending The Act in our The Act here in no contains provision any safeguards procedural respect case makes no sum- such administrative, mons, judicial either of domestic transactions whereby existing as the means can are contained in this law where- reports already given Treasury demand banks and under prosecution. But, It is true Donaldson v. United mendation for criminal 517, 534, pointed Douglas, concurring L. U.S. 91 S.Ct. out J. (p. 536, p. 545), taxpayer Ed.2d the Court limited to S.Ct. holding clearly standing some extent of Reisman that would have to raise customer-taxpayer right would have a of his constitutional claim violation proceedings, rights party to intervene in summons a third were ordered holding produce belonging intervene tax- absolute; example, Kordell, payer, citing is not there v. would be no to intervene when the 25 L.Ed.2d U.S. taxpayer proprietary 1; Caplin, interest Reisman (his Further, legislation the summoned records interest sole S.Ct. 508. being they presumably modify pending Congress contain de- now payments ; him) providing that, tails since he effect of Donaldson protectible by way acting government, has no other interest under IRS the statutes, when privilege otherwise, get he the consent had no ab- must first intervene; solute show cause that an IRS the bank customer the cus- summons be issued obtain bank records connection investigation with a tax if it is issued tomer. good prior faith and recom- 1250

ample orderly opportunity tionally regulate to investi- ac- but or forbid the basic gate tivity constitutionally concerned, citizens. tax violations and can records, require keeping particular the Further, presents question the the Act subject inspection by to Administra- the whether there is reasonable relation- tor.” sought ship the end to be between achieved, government e., possible assistance to the i. to tests Various have been formulated investigations in its the ascertain of a reasonableness search citizens, hand, on the one on the and seizure, g., and e. a is unreasona- search sweeping, peremptory, the hand, proportion ble when “it is out unsafeguarded (McMann sought” & end v. Securities Secretary which it authorizes the to re- Exchange 377, Commission, F.2d 87 379 quire. (2d 1937, Hand), Cir. J. Learned “balancing against need search There can no be about invasion which the search entails.” Congress power require Ct., 523, v. Mun. 387 S. Camara U.S. reports and entities business 1727, (1967); Ct. nex- L.Ed.2d “a Salt, (United citizens Morton States v. . .. item us between be seized 357, 632, 338 U.S. 94 L.Ed. 401 S.Ct. and criminal v. behavior.” Warden (1950)) provided, however, that 1642, Hayden, 294, 307, 387 U.S. reports records or bear reasonable some (1967). 18 L.Ed.2d 782 relationship inquiry. to the matters under relatively compared As See Federal Trade Commission v. specific certainly vital national Co., American Tobacco interests involved in (1924), S.Ct. L.Ed. 696 where the e., Court, supra, governmental fishing United States District i. Court that “a held government, subversion of our expedition private form of papers into the of a Supreme held, Court never- possibility they corporation, on the that theless, justify may crime, insufficient invasion disclose evidence is so con prior judicial approval, trary without of con- principles justice, to first if not privacy by tap wire versational surveil- Amendment, defiant of the Fourth given lance, stated Act grant reason power an intention question, now in for invasion agency subordinate will not attributed be expectation Congress of a customers’ reasonable expressed unless in most degree general e., privacy, mere i. explicit language” . . . . . and . help possibility that such will surveillance is “access confined to such documents as criminal, unspecified taxation and inquiry relevant evidence governmental investigations, is far more complaint before the commission. vague convincing. far less may City of The same said of be Shapiro In v. United 335 U.S. Young, supra, wherein Carmel v. 32-33, at at S.Ct. important an court held even such L.Ed. 1787 legislative subject specific con- recognized that “There are limits which among public cern as conflict of interest government constitutionally cannot employees justify an was insufficient requiring keeping exceed in right of overbroad invasion of one’s may inspected by records which be an privacy in his affairs. agency may administrative used be prosecuting statutory relationship How is be- violations com- far-fetched record-keeper himself,” mitted tween surveillance this authorized general expectation adding, misgivings it “But Act and the serious wrongdoing overstepped those bounds have indicated been uncover legislative appear history would wherein be its evoked when As- there activity Treasury, testify- sufficient relation between the sistant sought regulated Congressional public before Committee con- government cern so imposition can constitu- “We believe stated: that the do, requirement to intends to to the much broader all-encompassing but of an S. authorization the Act itself. photograph all drawn U. checks impractical, could be . . . the For reasons above set forth we are In counter-productive. wasteful, and opinion question, of the Act in o,f an- are drawn checks excess nually 20 billion insofar as it authorizes the require virtually flow States and in reporting unlimited only through banking system and from and their of banks customers likely percentage are of these small domestic financial as regulatory criminal, of in tax be use alleged pur- surveillance device pose investigations proceedings.” Senate discovering possible, of but un- Hearings, p. 178. wrongdoing among specified, citizenry, so constitu- far transcends the Similarly of Internal a Commissioner “ by laid limits, tional down as follows: . Revenue testified of Court for this kind however, Realistically, of a the creation legislation, unreasonably invade the as to capacity paper beyond our mass of privacy protected of The Bill digest effect could have the and utilize Rights, particularly the Fourth Amend- making submerging unobtainable protecting provision “the ment special In interest us. information persons, people secure to be shot- than a words, a rifle rather other gun papers against houses, un- effects approach may represent the best seizures.” reasonable searches and Hearings, p. problem.” House therefore, unnecessary We deem it government Remarkably, in its plaintiffs’ upon consider claims based recognize 5) (7/13/72, p. seems to brief against privilege Fifth Amendment self- by interpreting the these considerations incrimination, re- the Fifth Amendment reporting provisions mean the Act to quirement process, of due First “ Nothing in . . the statute that: gives . protection of Amendment freedom as- government greater sociation. possess- access to bank than it records Plaintiffs’ motion in the consoli- above Consequently, whenever ed before. injunction preliminary cases for a dated inspct government desires to federal granted enjoining de- the extent kept bank under the records enforcing from fendant govern- statute, the new federal provisions of the domestic Act using ment an administra- must resort in no other financial transactions —but subpoena judicial as it tive summons or respect. past. Upon did the issuance Memorandum constitutes This subpoena, such summons or if the bank findings and the Court conclusions of sum- customer felt that the use of the meaning within the Rules 52 and 65 illegal subpoena mons constituted Procedure. Federal Rules Civil under the Fourth and seizure search Amendment, could con- contention tested court in manner as it the same Judge (dissenting HAMLIN, Circuit (em- heretofore has been contested.” concurring) : added). phasis major- portion I concur in that government course, intends Of ity opinion up- case which the above contemplated to obtain the information constitutionality holds the of 31 U.S.C. reporting provisions the Act Treasury 1122,and the 1121 and §§ through sum- use of administrative regulations- implementing said sections. judicial subpoena, mons it has done however, dissent, respectfully I law, past existing in the under then one opinion holds portion of said question the for this well need new and 1083 U.S.C. §§ legislation. look, However, banking must transac- relating we domestic tó government merely says it tions are unconstitutional. what it, dif- see there is no essential As I covering the statutes ference between covering foreign and those domestic majority- banking requirements. The authority

opinion which is refers to directly point. there- The references involving priv- conversational to cases Any person acy inapposite. to me organization using for their own knowing purposes that the Code does so permit access sections government re- ports by the those rec- ords. finding should slow

Courts Congressional unconstitution- enactment al. case, any hardships result In this statutes, application can reason of Congress for relief.

be made BOWER, Plaintiff, John E. America, UNITED STATES Defendant. No. Civ. A. 72-347. Court, United States District Pennsylvania. W. D. Sept.

Case Details

Case Name: Stark v. Connally

Court Name: District Court, N.D. California

Date Published: Sep 11, 1972

Citation: 347 F. Supp. 1242

Docket Number: 72-1045, 72-1157

Court Abbreviation: N.D. Cal.