Public Employer’s Search (Case Law)

[sandra]

The next case, built upon T.L.O., is O’Connor v Ortega, 480U.S. 709 (1987). This case dealt with a public hospital administrator who searched and seized personal items from the desk and files in the hospital office of a physician who was suspended for impropriety. The hospital had no policy or reasonable regulation that would limit the doctor or any employee’s perception that they could store personal property and papers in their workspace. The Court upheld the search even though the hospital had no policy. The Court felt that because the search arose from a reasonable suspicion that the search of hospital property would produce evidence that the employee was guilty of misconduct and rule violations.

The Court explored several issues that clarify the exception to the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure protections. In O’Connor, the Court defined the workplace as work-related areas and items generally within the employer’s control. Since the immediate case involved a hospital, the Court used the hallways, cafeteria, offices, desks, and file cabinets among other areas, as examples of what is part of the workplace. They also said that these areas remain part of the workplace even if an employee places personal items in them.

The Court differentiated between the workplace and those personal items, such as an employee’s personal luggage,handbag or briefcase that happen to be in the workplace.Absent any legitimate regulation or actual practice or procedure, an employee may have an expectation of privacy that the contents of the luggage, handbag or briefcase are secure. In fact, the items would be secure from a search by law enforcement unless officers had a warrant.

Justice O’Connor in the opinion wrote:

Balanced against the substantial government interests in the efficient and proper operation of the workplace are the privacy rights of public employees in the workplace that, while not insubstantial, are far less than those found at home or in some other situations.As with the building inspections in Camara, the employer intrusions at issue here "involve a relatively limited invasion" of employee privacy. 387 U.S., at537. Government employees have offices for the sole purpose of facilitating the work of an agency. The Employee may avoid exposing personal belongings at work by simply leaving them at home.

Justice Scalia, concurring, wrote a good summation of the case.

The case turns, therefore, on whether the Fourth Amendment was violated - i.e., whether the government intrusion was reasonable. It is here that the government's status as an employer, and the employment-related character of the search, become relevant. While as a general rule warrant less searches are per se unreasonable, we have recognized exceptions when "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable . . . ." New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (BLACKMUN,J., concurring in judgment). Such "special needs" are present in the context of government employment. The Government, like any other employer, needs frequent and convenient access to its desks, offices, and file cabinets for work-related purposes. I would hold that government searches to retrieve work-related materials or to investigate violations of workplace rules -searches of the sort that are regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context - do not violate the Fourth Amendment.