Opinion ID: 221946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Statutorily-Protected Privacy Interest

Text: Additionally, McIntyre argues that he has a statutorily-protected privacy interest in his electrical usage at his Crofton residence under Nebraska Revised Statute § 70-101. According to McIntyre, authorities also breached the very process [they] cited as authority in [their] efforts to obtain the recordsNebraska Revised Statute § 25-1273. He argues that the government failed to demonstrate that any of the discovery rules authorized discovery from a nonparty in this case, as required by § 25-1273. [3] And, he contends that, while the subpoena claims that Nebraska Rule of Civil Discovery 34A grants the issuing county attorney the authority to issue it, the rule applies to civil cases, not criminal cases. Here, Knox County Attorney John Thomas issued the subpoena duces tecum, under the purported authority of § 25-1273, commanding Cedar-Knox Public Power District to provide [a] true and complete copy of all electricity usage records and reports  for the Crofton residence. (Emphasis added.) McIntyre argues that he has a statutorily-protected interest in these usage records under § 70-101, which provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding confidentiality of records, every district or corporation organized under Chapter 70 shall, upon request, furnish to any county attorney, any authorized attorney as defined in section 42-347, or the Department of Health and Human Services a utility service subscriber's name, social security number, and mailing and residence addresses only for the purposes of establishing and collecting child, spousal, and medical support and of conducting reviews under sections 43-512.12 to 43-512.18. Such information shall be used for no other purpose. An action may be filed in district court to enforce this section. For purposes of this section, utility service shall mean electrical, gas, water, telephone, garbage disposal, or waste disposal service. (Emphasis added.) As the district court explained, McIntyre's argument that § 70-101 provides an expectation of privacy by restricting the dissemination to the county attorney of utility subscriber information is deficient because that statute relates only to identifying information and not to usage records.  United States v. McIntyre, 683 F.Supp.2d 1020, 1026 (D.Neb.2010) (emphasis added). Therefore, we conclude that McIntyre's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by law enforcement's use of the subpoena, and a search warrant was unnecessary to obtain the usage records. We also reject McIntyre's argument that the subpoena was deficient because it was not served in compliance with § 25-1273 or Nebraska Rule of Civil Discovery 34A. As the district court explained, [r]egardless of these issues, the county attorney has subpoena power, under the circumstances present here, pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-2,112. Id. at 1033. Section 86-2, 112 states that any county attorney may . . . require the production of records . . . which constitute or contain evidence relevant or material to the investigation or enforcement of the laws of this state when it reasonably appears that such action is necessary and proper. And, even if state law was violated, state law violations do not necessarily offend the Federal Constitution. United States v. Burtton, 599 F.3d 823, 828 (8th Cir.2010) (quotation and citation omitted). Thus, when a federal court must decide whether to exclude evidence obtained through an arrest, search, or seizure by state officers, the appropriate inquiry is whether the arrest, search, or seizure violated the Federal Constitution, not whether the arrest, search, or seizure violated state law. Id. (quotation and citation omitted). For the reasons set forth supra in Part A.1, we hold that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.