- 32 -
statement of at least two investigators, sworn to in person in
Panama. Petitioner asserts that the request did not satisfy
these requirements.
Petitioner asserts that pursuant to Panamanian law, he has
standing to challenge the manner in which the records were
obtained. We disagree. The article of law under which
petitioner claims to have standing refers to "all nationals and
foreigners living under Panamanian jurisdiction", which does not
include petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner lacks standing to
challenge any purported violation of Panamanian law. Cf. United
States v. Mann, supra at 852-853; Harvey v. United States, 730 F.
Supp. at 1106. We hold respondent's use of petitioner's BCCI
records was not improper.
Petitioner also argues that the Government violated his
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when
it sought and obtained his BCCI records. Petitioner does not
have a protected Fourth Amendment interest in his BCCI records.
See United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980); United States
v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); see also United States v. Mann,
supra. Thus, petitioner's claim of a Fourth Amendment violation
fails.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011