Court Opinion

ID: 9534610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:41:22.035568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:47.445724
License: Public Domain

Allegrucci, J.,
dissenting: I do not agree with the majority’s holding that the defendant did not have standing to challenge the inquisition subpoena. At issue is whether the defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy under § 15 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court has held that bank depositors and telephone customers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those records under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For that reason, a defendant has no standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim to challenge a subpoena to obtain those records.
As the majority points out, we are not bound by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in interpreting our own state constitution. We are free to interpret § 15 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution to afford greater protection to our citizens than does the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Abbott, opining for the majority, has discussed in great detail the holdings in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 48 L. Ed. 2d 71, 96 S. Ct. 1619 (1976), Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220, 99 S. Ct. 2577 (1979), and related *852state cases, both pro and con. The line is clearly drawn, and I find myself on the side opposite the majority.
I would reject the holding and rationale of the majority in Miller and Smith and embrace the rationale of the dissenting opinions of Justices Stewart, Marshall, and Brennan.
To free men and women, the right of privacy is the glue that holds together the very fabric of a free society and the rights guaranteed by both the United States and Kansas Constitutions. The most intimate details of one’s personal life are just as sacred to the citizens who have nothing to hide as to those who do.
I do not find it unreasonable for Kansas citizens to expect their telephone and banking records will be protected and used only for internal purposes by the respective institutions. Absent an express waiver of that reasonable expectation of privacy or compulsory legal process, such records aré not subject to disclosure. The very personal nature of such records mandates such a conclusion. ' •
I believe the defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy under § 15 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution and thus has standing to challenge the inquisition subpoena. I would reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
Six, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.