Opinion ID: 739069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Appellants' Other Fourth Amendment Arguments.

Text: 30 The appellants trot out a profusion of additional asseverations in their effort to convince us that continuous video surveillance of the workplace constitutes an impermissible search. First, invoking Orwellian imagery, they recite a catechism pasted together from bits and pieces of judicial pronouncements recognizing the intrusive nature of video surveillance. These statements are taken out of context. Without exception, they refer to cameras installed surreptitiously during the course of criminal investigations. See, e.g., United States v. Mesa-Rincon, 911 F.2d 1433, 1442 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F.2d 248, 251 (5th Cir.1987); Hawaii v. Bonnell, 75 Haw. 124, 856 P.2d 1265, 1276-77 (1993). Concealed cameras which infringe upon the rights of criminal defendants raise troubling constitutional concerns--concerns not implicated by the employer's actions in this case. 31 By like token, the appellants' attempts to analogize video monitoring to physical searches are unavailing. The silent video surveillance which occurs at the Center is less intrusive than most physical searches conducted by employers. PRTC's stationary cameras do not pry behind closed office doors or into desks, drawers, file cabinets, or other enclosed spaces, but, rather, record only what is plainly visible on the surface. Sounds are not recorded; thus, the cameras do not eavesdrop on private conversations between employees. And while the Court occasionally has characterized the taking of pictures as a search, it is a constitutionally permissible activity if it does not transgress an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. See, e.g., Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 238-39, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 1826-27, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986) (upholding a search by aerial camera when the photographs taken were limited to the outline of the surveilled plant's buildings and equipment, even though the photos revealed more detail than could be seen by the human eye). 32 Next, the appellants complain that while at work under the cameras' unrelenting eyes they cannot scratch, yawn, or perform any other movement in privacy. This complaint rings true, but it begs the question. [T]he test of legitimacy is not whether a person chooses to conceal assertedly 'private' activity, but whether the intrusion is objectively unreasonable. Oliver, 466 U.S. at 182-83, 104 S.Ct. at 1743-44; accord California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 212, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 1812, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). 33 Finally, the appellants tout the potential for future abuse, arguing, for example, that PRTC might expand video surveillance into the restrooms. Certainly, such an extension would raise a serious constitutional question. See, e.g., People v. Dezek, 107 Mich.App. 78, 308 N.W.2d 652, 654-55 (1981) (upholding a reasonable expectation of privacy against video surveillance in restroom stalls). But present fears are often no more than horrible imaginings, and potential privacy invasions do not constitute searches within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. See Dow Chem., 476 U.S. at 238 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. at 1827 n. 5; United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 712, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 3301-02, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984). 34 We have said enough on this score. The appellants have failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment on their Fourth Amendment claim. Because they do not enjoy an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy against disclosed, soundless video surveillance while at work, they have no cause of action under the Fourth Amendment. 7