A bank customer who has not requested confidentiality does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her name or address as a bank customer, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in a case of first impression. A three-judge panel reversed a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge, holding that police who had obtained a defendant's bank account number were not wrong to request his name and address from the bank without a warrant.
April 10, 2000 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A bank customer who has not requested confidentiality does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her name or address as a bank customer, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled in a case of first impression.
A three-judge panel reversed a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge, holding that police who had obtained a defendant’s bank account number were not wrong to request his name and address from the bank without a warrant.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
