Opinion ID: 1926111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Respondent's other arguments

Text: The remaining objections on appeal are either frivolous or not properly before this court. Respondent contends that a violation of a bar disciplinary rule cannot be the basis for a criminal prosecution. In the instant case, respondent was found in criminal contempt for violating an order of this court, not for violating a bar disciplinary rule. This court has the power to enforce its orders with contempt. See D.C.Code § 11-741; see also Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 505, 510, 22 L.Ed. 205 (1873) (The power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts. . . .). Respondent raises procedural and due process concerns regarding the underlying interim suspension order. [3] The matter on appeal is the contempt conviction, not the interim suspension order, which is res judicata. See In re Richardson, 692 A.2d 427 (D.C.1997) (suspending Respondent from practice of law). Respondent also asserts that the disclosure of his bank records pursuant to a subpoena violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. [A] depositor has no expectation of privacy and thus no `protectable Fourth Amendment interest' in copies of checks and deposit slips retained by his bank. United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 732, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980) (quoting United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 437, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976)). Therefore respondent's argument is without merit. [4] Finally, respondent contends that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated when Bar Counsel's subpoenas were enforced. Respondent cannot rely upon the Fifth Amendment for protection from revelations emanating from properly subpoenaed bank records. See Baltimore City Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555, 110 S.Ct. 900, 107 L.Ed.2d 992 (1990) ([A] person may not claim the [Fifth] Amendment's protections based upon the incrimination that may result from the contents or nature of the thing demanded.). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of criminal contempt. Affirmed.