Opinion ID: 774990
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Employer Searches in Government Workplaces

Text: 28 [T]he Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches conducted by the Government, even when the Government acts as an employer. Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665 (1989). The special needs of public employers may, however, allow them to dispense with the probable cause and warrant requirements when conducting workplace searches related to investigations of work- related misconduct. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 719-26 (1987) (plurality opinion); id. at 732 (Scalia, J. concurring). In these situations, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches is enforced by a careful balancing of governmental and private interests. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985) (discussing the reasonableness of a search in the absence of a warrant and probable cause). A public employer's search of an area in which an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy is reasonable when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of its purpose. O'Connor, 480 U.S. at 726 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). 29 We begin by inquiring whether the conduct... at issue... infringed an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable. Id. at 715 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, a workplace search by a public employer will not violate the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the search's nature and scope. The workplace conditions can be such that an employee's expectation of privacy in a certain area is diminished. See id. at 717-18 (plurality opinion) (recognizing that offices that are continually entered by fellow employees and other visitors during the workday for conferences, consultations, and other work-related visits, can be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable.); id. at 737 (Blackman, J., dissenting) ([I]n certain situations, the `operational realities' of the workplace may remove some expectation of privacy on the part of the employee.). On the facts of O'Connor, the entire Court found a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the office desk and file cabinets in which the plaintiff had maintained his personal correspondence, medical files, correspondence from private patients unconnected with his employment, personal financial records, teaching aids and notes, and personal gifts and mementos. Id. at 718 (plurality opinion); id. at 731 (Scalia, J., concurring); id. at 732 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). In finding that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the plurality noted that there was no evidence that the employer had established a[ ] reasonable regulation or policy discouraging employees... from storing personal papers and effects in their desks or file cabinets. Id. at 719 (plurality opinion).