Miller applies to toll records maintained by telephone companies, noting that a "telephone subscriber is fully aware when he places a long distance call that the telephone company will make a record of the call, that the record is the company's property, and that the Government has ready access to the record for law enforcement purposes."

This conclusion is borne out by the federal courts that have passed on this question and have concluded that toll billing records are not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.

Pohle seizes on the following passage from Indiana Bell which was quoted in Indiana Nat'l Bank: "[C] ourts have uniformly held that subscribers have no Fourth Amendment basis for challenging Government inspection of their toll records, since subscribers, like bank depositors, have taken the risk in revealing their affairs to third parties that the information will be …

—jected these constitutional claims and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.'0 On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, "holding that toll call record subpoenas do not violate the first amendment unless they are issued in bad faith or the plaintiff establishes that there is a clear and …

—individual must occasionally transact business with other people. When he does so, he leaves behind, as evidence of his activity, the records and recollections of others. He cannot expect that these activities are his private affair. To the extent an individual knowingly exposes his activities to third parties,... if the Government is subsequently called upon to investigate his …

Reporters are not entitled under the First or Fourth Amendments to advance warning that a subpoena is coming, however.

Although long distance carriers maintain records of toll numbers, local call records are rarely, if ever, recorded.

If the interest is imperfect, as in the case of an automobile, or is penetrated by even minimal voluntary exposure, 26s at least some element of fourth amendment protection is sacrificed, regardless of whether the interest is in information or property

Yet a third breed conceives of Branzburg as indicating that reporters are not entitled to even a qualified immunity before a criminal grand jury.

Our Court of Appeals has denied such equitable relief, ruling that "only the most extraordinary circumstances warrant anticipatory judicial involvement in criminal investigations." Id

[PDF] Vanessa Leggett Serves Maximum Jail Time, First

[PDF] MR. JTSTICB, BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents …

[CITATION] Privacy law and society