California Legal Brief

The Rule of Scott Meiner v. The Superior Court of Orange County is that an Apple Pay account constitutes a "financial account" for purposes of probation search limitations and must be excluded from warrantless probation searches when the probation terms expressly exclude "financial accounts," under circumstances where the probation terms specifically limit search authorization and do not extend to financial accounts.

Appeal from order denying motion to suppress evidence in Superior Court, Orange County.

Defendant/Appellant was Scott Meiner — the probationer whose Apple Pay account was searched during a probation search that led to discovery of linked bank accounts.

Plaintiff/Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking to use evidence obtained from bank account searches based on information discovered through the Apple Pay search.

The suit sounded in criminal charges for grand theft. No cross-claims were applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were officers investigating whether Meiner was stealing from an auto business by directing customers to send money to him rather than the business discovered he was on probation, obtained his probation terms which excluded searches of "financial accounts," then searched his seized cell phone including his Apple Pay account which revealed two linked debit cards with Chase and Credit One banks.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Meiner's motion to suppress evidence and quash the search warrant, ruling that the search was permitted and Apple Pay was not a "financial account" under the probation terms.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the motion should be brought as a motion to traverse rather than to quash 2. Whether an Apple Pay account constitutes a "financial account" under probation search limitations 3. Whether evidence from bank accounts discovered through the Apple Pay search should be suppressed

The Appellate Court held that an Apple Pay account is a "financial account" under probation search terms because it is licensed as a money transmitter, regulated by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, links to other financial accounts, and can store cash, making the warrantless search of the Apple Pay account a violation of the probation terms that required suppression of subsequently obtained bank account evidence.

The case is inapplicable when probation terms do not contain express exclusions for financial accounts, when the probation search terms specifically define "financial account" to exclude digital payment applications, or when probable cause for bank account searches exists independent of information obtained from digital payment applications.

The case leaves open whether other digital payment platforms like Zelle or Venmo would similarly constitute "financial accounts," the scope of what other types of accounts might be considered "financial accounts" under probation terms, and whether good faith exceptions might apply in cases where the officer's interpretation of probation terms was objectively reasonable.