6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 553a
State attorneys — Subpoenas — Privacy — Motion to quash subpoena duces tecum issued at request of investigator for Department of Insurance, Division of Insurance Fraud and requiring production of financial institution records — State’s interest in conducting an effective criminal investigation into allegations of theft on part of movant is compelling state interest, issuance of subpoena duces tecum was least intrusive means employed to achieve that interest, and subpoena was reasonably calculated to obtain information relevant to ongoing criminal investigation — Prior judicial approval of such a subpoena is not required — Motion to quash subpoena and motion for permanent injunction is denied
ANTHONY E. RAMOS, Plaintiff, vs. OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, Defendant. 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Action. Case No. CL 99-3056 AD. May 27, 1999. Moses Baker, Judge.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION
This matter was before the Court on an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Permanent Injunction and the Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to same. The Court received the testimony presented by the parties, reviewed the documents presented by the parties, and has considered the legal argument which was tendered at the conclusion of the hearing, and makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the request of investigator Paul Sennett of the Florida Department of Insurance, Division of Insurance Fraud, the Defendant issued a subpoena duces tecum directed to Kevin Tynan of the Florida Bar requiring him to produce Barnett Bank documents relating to the Trust Account for Anthony Ramos, Anthony Ramos Operating Account, Anthony Ramos Cost Account and Anthony Ramos Payroll Account.
2. The subpoena was issued under and pursuant to the authority of the State Attorney to issue such subpoenas as set forth in Section 27.04, Florida Statutes.
3 The subpoena was duly served and the Plaintiff’s records as set forth above are in the possession of Investigator Sennett whose criminal investigation of the Plaintiff is ongoing.
4. The Plaintiff was not given notice of the issuance of the subpoena.
5. No indictment or information has been filed formally charging the Plaintiff with any crime.
6. That the instant case is the only judicial proceeding between the parties and was commenced by the Plaintiff filing his initial Motion to Quash Subpoena on March 26, 1999 or some fourteen and one-half months after the issuance of the subpoena in question.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution provides that every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein. State law recognizes an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy in financial institution records, and also recognizes that the state’s interest in conducting effective criminal investigations is a compelling state interest which may override one’s privacy expectations. See Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, 477 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1985).
The provisions of Rule 1.410 Fla.R.Civ.P. do not apply to the issues before the Court.
The provisions of Rule 3.220 Fla.R.Crim.P. do not apply to the issues before the Court inasmuch as no criminal indictment or information has been filed charging Plaintiff with any crime, as was the case in Able Builders Sanitation Co. v. State, 368 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. App. 1979).
The state’s interest in conducting an effective criminal investigation into allegations of theft on the part of the Plaintiff is a compelling state interest; the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum was the least intrusive means employed to achieve that interest; and the subpoena in question was reasonably calculated to obtain the information which was relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation.
Prior judicial approval of such subpoena is not required.
It is, thereupon,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Permanent Injunction be and the same is hereby denied.
* * *