Pa. court says police don't need warrant to get ATM cardholder's info

PHILADELPHIA -- Police do not need a search warrant to obtain the name and address of an ATM cardholder from a bank, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

According to an Associated Press report, the court ruled in a recent 5-2 decision that a telephone call to a rape suspect's bank to get the information did not violate his civil rights.

During an investigation of a 1996 rape in downtown Philadelphia, police officers learned from a clerk at an area pornography store that a man matching the suspect's description had tried to make a purchase using an ATM card but the card was rejected.

Police then obtained a list of ATM card numbers used at the store and found two cards that had been rejected. They obtained a search warrant to obtain the name of one suspect, who was eventually eliminated, but telephoned the bank of the second cardholder without a warrant.

A manager at Drovers Bank provided the name of the cardholder, David Duncan of York County, Pa., who was charged with rape after police obtained samples of his blood, bodily fluid and hair.

Duncan filed a motion to suppress the evidence, contending that he had a right of privacy under the state constitution to have his name and address held confidential by the bank.

A trial court judge suppressed the evidence, but a Superior Court panel reversed the decision. Duncan appealed that decision to the high court.

The court found that Duncan had taken no special steps to conceal his identity, such as paying an additional fee to the bank to ensure that his information was not disclosed.

"We hold, consistently with the realities of our modern, consumer age and the experience of other courts, that appellant does not have an expectation of privacy in his name and address that society is willing to recognize as reasonable and legitimate," Justice Ronald D. Castille wrote in the majority opinion.

However, Justice Russell M. Nigro wrote in a dissenting opinion that the police got not just the suspect's name and address, but a link to his account number, which he had an expectation to be kept private.

"This case does not involve access to an individual's name and address in a vacuum, or even in conjunction with other non-private information," Nigro wrote. "Rather, it involves account information that was provided to police along with a name and address."