Opinion ID: 774990
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Nature and Scope of the Searches

Text: 35 Even though Leventhal had some expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer, the investigatory searches by the DOT did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. An investigatory search for evidence of suspected work-related employee misfeasance will be constitutionally reasonable if it is justified at its inception and of appropriate scope. Id. at 726 (plurality opinion); see also T.L.O. 469 U.S. at 342 (finding search permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of... the nature of the [misconduct]). We agree with the district court that both of these requirements are satisfied here. 36 The initial consideration of the search's justification examines whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct. O'Connor, 480 U.S. at 726 (plurality opinion). Here, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the searches would uncover evidence of misconduct. The specific allegations against the grade 27 employee, who was reasonably assumed to be Leventhal, were that (1) he was late everyday; (2) he spent [t]he majority of his time... on non-DOT business related phone calls or talking to other personnel about personal computers; and that (3) [h]e is only in the office half the time[; the other half] he is either sick or on vacation. Probable cause is not necessary to conduct a search in this context, a plurality of the Court has explained, because public employers have a direct and overriding interest in ensuring that the work of the agency is conducted in a proper and efficient manner. Id. at 724 (plurality opinion). The individualized suspicion of misconduct in this case justified the DOT's decision to instigate some type of search. 5 37 The scope of a search will be appropriate if reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the misconduct. Id. at 726 (plurality opinion) (alterations omitted). We conclude that the DOT search to identify whether Leventhal was using non-standard DOT software was reasonably related to the DOT's investigation of the allegations of Leventhal's workplace misconduct. Although the anonymous letter did not allege that the grade 27 employee was misusing DOT office computers, it did allege that the grade 27 employee was not attentive to his duties and spent a significant amount of work time discussing personal computers with other employees. Furthermore, the letter's allegations assumed that the DOT prohibition against misusing office computers was not rigorously enforced in the Accounting Bureau, remarking that a grade 18 employee play[ed] computer games, that a grade 23 employee spent a substantial part of the day playing computer games or in non-work related conversations, and that another grade 23 employee amuses himself by learning about computer software which have nothing to do with work. In view of the allegations of the misuse of DOT computers among other employees in the Accounting Bureau, Leventhal's alleged penchant for discussing personal computers during work hours, and Leventhal's general inattention to his duties which included, we presume, supervision of the computer use of others, we find that the searches of his computer were reasonably related to the DOT investigation of allegations of Leventhal's workplace misconduct. 38 Leventhal argues that a search for non-standard software would be irrelevant to charges of misconduct because the DOT had, de facto, approved of the use of non-standard software needed to conduct DOT business. Even assuming that this were true, the investigation was more broadly aimed at uncovering evidence that Leventhal was using his office computer for non-DOT purposes. The searches accomplished this task by uncovering evidence that Leventhal had loaded a tax preparation program onto his office computer, a program that he later admitted he used to print out personal tax returns in his office. 39 We also find that the scope of the searches was not excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the misconduct. Id. at 726 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). During the first search, the DOT investigators printed out a list of file names found on Leventhal's office computer. They did not run any program or open any files. The investigators entered Leventhal's office through an open door and found that Leventhal's computer had no power-on password although some menu selections were password protected. The investigators limited their search to viewing and printing file names that were reasonably related to the DOT's need to know whether Leventhal was misusing his office computer. The first search was permissible in scope. 40 Neither were the three subsequent searches excessively intrusive. After the first search had established that files named TAX.FNT and CUSTTAX.DBF were loaded on Leventhal's computer, the investigators reasonably suspected that these files were part of a tax program. When DOT investigators and management met to discuss what they had found in the first search, Assistant Commissioner Knapek expressed a particular interest in confirming whether Leventhal had loaded tax preparation software on his DOT computer, aware that Leventhal had a private tax practice. Investigators reexamined the computer in Leventhal's office once in February 1997 and twice in April 1997. These searches were limited to copying onto a laptop computer the PPU directories that they later identified as referring to Pencil Pushers, a tax preparation program, and the Morph directories, pertaining to a graphics program, to printing out additional copies of the file names, and to opening a few files to examine their contents. There is no evidence that the DOT opened and examined any computer files containing individual tax returns that may have been saved on Leventhal's computer, and, therefore, we need not address the permissibility of searching such materials. Considering that the first search yielded evidence upon which it was reasonable to suspect that a more thorough search would turn up additional proof that Leventhal had misused his DOT office computer, the DOT investigators were justified in returning to confirm the nature of the non-standard DOT programs loaded on Leventhal's computer by copying directories, printing file names, and opening selected files. 6