The trajectory of civil society has always been juxtaposed between personal liberty and national security. As populations burgeon and technological advancements take gargantuan strides, they bring with them challenges unlike any before. While on one hand, they consign novel ways to execute illicit activities, on the other, they also provide cutting-edge tools for enforcement agencies to deter such actions. One such arduous task for the law enforcement authorities is to obtain access to third-party financial records.

Not only is the task onerous because of the complexities inherent in the financial systems, but it also calls into question the balance between an individual's right to privacy and the state's obligation to ensure security. With the shift of financial archival towards electronic databases, there's been an exponential augmentation in the constraints faced by the authorities in retrieving this information.

Financial records serve as critical investigatory leads when dealing with cases that encompass criminal activities such as fraud, embezzlement, drug trafficking, and terrorism-related financing. They provide an insightful optic into the perpetrators' transactional history and financial network, thereby enabling identification of potential accomplices.

On a global scale, requests for financial details often have to navigate through a labyrinth of jurisdictional and international laws. Complicating the equation further, these laws vary between locales and nations, each having its distinct legal edifice and norms with pertaining to privacy and state law enforcement powers.

In the United States, stakeholder agencies must comply with the provisions laid down in the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), making the task both legally and procedurally demanding. The BSA obliges financial institutions to assist government agencies in detecting and averting money laundering. Simultaneously, it mandates them to keep customer records which have a high degree of utility in financial investigations.

The RFPA, first legislated in 1978, came into existence post the Supreme Court's ruling in "United States v. Miller". The crux of the legislative measure was to create stipulations to guard an individual's financial privacy. Its directives prohibit financial institutions from disclosing information to government authorities without proper legal procedure.

Accessing third-party records often necessitates law enforcement agencies to procure warrants or subpoenas, each having its distinct requirement and permissible extent of scrutiny. The journey of requisitioning and receiving financial records involves meticulous drafting of affidavits, which lay down the probable cause and the link between the individual in question and the alleged criminal activity. This entire procedure undergoes multiple levels of verification to ensure adherence to procedural legality under the Fourth Amendment.

In a global context, law enforcement's capacity to gain access to third-party financial records has been largely optimized through mutual legal assistant treaties (MLAT). These serve as agreement frameworks between countries, easing the process of sharing information during criminal cases. Albeit, the process can be tediously time-consuming due to bureaucratic red tape, language barriers, and the differing legal standards across nations.

Contrarily, the rise of cryptocurrency and the accompanying surge in decentralized financial systems pose new challenges. As blockchain technology provides a high degree of anonymity to users, tracing transactions to a specific person becomes arduous.

As society evolves, the methods employed to scrutinize financial records are metamorphosing, making the job a constant catch-up for law enforcement authorities and lawmakers alike. The future will undoubtedly hold more changes in this dynamic dance between the individual's right to privacy and the state's obligation to maintain security.

Ensuring the right balance between these two tenets will guide the future course of legislative and enforcement practices. The challenge lies not only in facilitating effective law enforcement but also ensuring, amidst it all, the preservation of the democratic value of personal privacy. The harmonization of these seemingly contrary concepts is perhaps one of the greatest challenges for modern democratic societies.

The role of legislation in this equation cannot be overstated. It forms the fulcrum on which this balance of privacy and security rests. Thus, consistent evaluation and adaptive modifications of policies guiding access to financial records is imperative. After all, the collective weight of individual privacy and national security hangs in the balance, setting the tone for the continued evolution of civil society.