The trial court erred in giving a jury instruction in this invasion of the constitutional right of privacy case which stated unconditionally that bank customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to financial information disclosed to their bank.  While a bank customer has a right to privacy of financial records, the customer does not have an unconditional expectation of privacy of those records.   Whether an expectation of privacy is reasonable in any given circumstance is a context-specific inquiry, and “‘[t]he protection afforded to the plaintiff’s interest in his [or her] privacy must be relative to the customs of the time and place, to the occupation of the plaintiff[,] and to the habits of his [or her] neighbors and fellow citizens.”  Here, it was for the jury to decide whether a bank president had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his financial records which he knew would be audited to comply with regulatory requirements.