> The government needs a warrant after convincing a judge that there is probable cause that you have committed a crime before they can pull your bank records.

> The government needs a warrant after convincing a judge that there is probable cause that you have committed a crime before they can pull your bank records. Unfortunately, transaction records like financial records are currently afforded a very low level of legal protection in the U.S., so the "warrant" and "probable cause" parts don't describe current practice. (That would be the case for a telephone wiretap, or a search of your home, but not for access to your financial records.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine One thing that I don't think the press ever managed to chase down -- following the Snowden revelations -- is the rumor that there was also a "bulk financial records program" which would have involved intelligence agencies and/or law enforcement getting access to search all bank transactions, without any individualized suspicion. (Recall that one thing Snowden revealed is that there was a bulk telephone records program, in which telephone metadata was turned over to the government in bulk, without individualized suspicion, which the government justified in part due to the third-party doctrine.) In the government's view, the third-party doctrine means that it's never a fourth amendment violation if the government compels access to most kinds of transaction data in the possession of some kind of service provider or intermediary. (Some of those kinds of data may have higher levels of statutory protection but the government's position, as I understand it, has been that it's not an infringement of your fourth amendment rights even if those protections are circumvented or ignored.)