DOJ-OGR-00002561.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 22 Maxwell did not voluntarily share anything with JJ and because every other circumstance supported Maxwell’s expectation that her i would be private. The Supreme Court has held that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information [she] voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-44. “That remains true ‘even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose.’” Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2216 (quoting United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976)). In Smith v. Maryland, the Court ruled that the government’s use of a pen register—a device used by telephone companies to record the outgoing phone numbers dialed on a landline telephone—was not a search. By placing calls from his landline, the Court reasoned, Smith “voluntarily conveyed” the dialed numbers to the telephone company by “expos[ing] that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.” 442 U.S. at 744. The Court held that Smith has “assumed the risk” that the telephone company’s records “would be divulged to police.” Jd. at 745. Similarly, in United States v. Miller, the Court ruled that the government could subpoena an individual’s bank records, including several months of canceled checks, deposit slips, and monthly statements. The Court explained that because the checks were “not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions,” and because the bank statements contained information “exposed to [bank] employees in the ordinary course of business,” Miller had only a limited expectation of privacy. 425 U.S. at 442. The Court determined that Miller had “take[n] the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information [would] be conveyed by that person to the Government.” /d. at 443. DOJ-OGR-00002561