Checks drawn on our bank were stolen and cashed at our bank.The customer had already endorsed the checks with his signature, so the bank will not take a loss. To assist my customer (and Police) in identifing the thief, can I release video surveillance to Law Inforcement, without a subpoena?

I want to say yes. But, you can release information to the police with a release from your customer. This will protect you as it is basically the same as the customer turning over the information once getting it from you. It's simply less time consuming. I've done this a few times when it has served the customers' best interests.

Just to be clear - is the suspect another customer at your bank, or not? If you are asking about releasing information about another customer, you should probably check your state privacy laws. My general understanding is that Federal law enforcement would need to subpoena information about your customer, but a subpoena is not always required from local law enforcement.

And is the payee/endorser also your customer? If you don't have a relationship with the victim, I'm not sure why you would need to get a release from him to provide law enforcement with surveillance images owned by the bank. I could be wrong, but I think it's mostly a question of policy. We generally tell victims that if they have filed a police report, we will provide relevant surveillance directly to law enforcement upon request. I think there is some room to decide whether you want the request in writing.

I see this or similar questions often enough that it makes me wonder. Why does law enforcement, the people charged with upholding and enforcing the law, often seem to attempt to circumvent it and get evidence without the required subpoena? Couldn't this taint their evidence and maybe cause it to get thrown out if it wasn't obtained properly?

We have a writen procedure (as should everyone) and it's very clear: If the bank is the victim of a crime the bank will release whatever records necessary to facilitate the investigation. If the bank is not the victim we require a subpoena, search warrant, etc. or the written consent of the individual, whether a customer or not, before we release any information.

I had a State Police officer complain to his Sgt who called me and told me our procedure was 100% correct and we should not waiver. He also apologized for this officer's behavior.

Banking Bard,

I don't think any law enforcement would repeatedly engage in a practice that could cause problems with tainted evidence. But I am honestly curious to know which laws are being circumvented?

Greg,

Just curious to know how your procedure defines the bank as a victim: in any event that it suffers a loss caused by fraud, or only if a suspect is acting directly against the bank (and not against one of your customers)?

If the bank takes a loss or a potential loss, for example: 1) we pay checks on a customer's account over a forged signature - we take the loss, so we file a report and provide whatever information is needed. 2) customer tries to deposit counterfeit items even after we've told him they were counterfeit - we didn't take any loss but if we had accepted the deposit we could have. Again, we reserve the right to make a report and furnish evidence.

However, when the local police show up and want a copy of a customer's statement because they're investigating bad checks writen to local merchants, that requires a subpoena or warrant.

I once had the Chief of Police ask to see our ATM footage for a certain date because a 13 year old girl was abducted and they hoped there might be some evidence. I refused to give them the tape - they got mad at me until the judge told them I was right and refused to give them a warrant.

It's been my experience that Police officers will cut procedural corners just like anyone else. My job is to make sure it doesn't come back to haunt my bank.

Drama Queen,

I was fairly certain that the privacy act allows a bank to share customer financial information with law enforcement only in pursuit of criminal cases that it has filed (i.e. when it is the victim), and when requested with proper subpoena. Of course, some state laws override this for local law enforcement (GA being on example I've seen given).

As Greg points out, they will try to cut procedural corners whether in attempt to speed things up, lack of knowledge concerning laws that they probably don't deal with that often, or plain human nature and the inclination to follow the path of least resistance. Regardless, it seems to me like the paperwork would be less frustration than jeopardizing what might be key evidence.

Thanks very much for the insight. I work for a very small, very community-minded institution, and maybe we are more liberal than some about assisting law enforcement. It's great to find information that might help us to improve our procedures. My experience with law enforcement is that they are not very consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which makes it difficult to understand what rules really need to be followed (either by them or by us).