Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 38

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

11 

KENNEDY, J., dissenting 

records.  See Miller, 425 U. S., at 444446; SEC v. Jerry T. 
O’Brien, Inc., 467 U. S. 735, 742743 (1984).
  Based  on  Miller  and  Smith  and  the  principles  underly-
ing those cases, it is well established that subpoenas may 
be  used  to  obtain  a  wide  variety  of  records  held  by  busi-
nesses, even when the records contain private information.  
See 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §4.13 (5th ed. 2012).
Credit  cards  are  a  prime  example.    State  and  federal  law 
enforcement,  for  instance,  often  subpoena  credit  card 
statements  to  develop  probable  cause  to  prosecute  crimes
ranging 
from  drug  trafficking  and  distribution  to 
healthcare  fraud  to  tax  evasion.    See  United  States  v. 
Phibbs,  999  F. 2d  1053  (CA6  1993)  (drug  distribution); 
McCune  v.  DOJ,  592  Fed.  Appx.  287  (CA5  2014) 
(healthcare  fraud);  United  States  v.  Green,  305  F. 3d  422 
(CA6 2002) (drug trafficking and tax evasion); see also 12
U. S. C.  §§3402(4),  3407  (allowing  the  Government  to 
subpoena  financial  records  if  “there  is  reason  to  believe
that  the  records  sought  are  relevant  to  a  legitimate  law
enforcement  inquiry”).    Subpoenas  also  may  be  used  to
obtain  vehicle  registration  records,  hotel  records,  employ-
ment records, and records of utility usage, to name just a 
few other examples.  See 1 LaFave, supra, §2.7(c).

And  law  enforcement  officers  are  not  alone  in  their 
reliance on subpoenas to obtain business records for legit-
imate investigations.  Subpoenas also are used for investi-
gatory  purposes  by  state  and  federal  grand  juries,  see 
United  States  v.  Dionisio,  410  U. S.  1  (1973),  state  and 
federal  administrative  agencies,  see  Oklahoma  Press, 
supra,  and  state  and  federal  legislative  bodies,  see 
McPhaul v. United States, 364 U. S. 372 (1960). 

B 
Carpenter does not question these traditional investiga-
tive practices.  And he does not ask the Court to reconsider 
Miller  and  Smith.  Carpenter  argues  only  that,  under