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

Heading: Leventhal's Expectation of Privacy

Text: 30 We hold, based on the particular facts of this case, that Leventhal had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer. We make this assessment in the context of the employment relation, id. at 717 (plurality opinion), after considering what access other employees or the public had to Leventhal's office. 31 Leventhal occupied a private office with a door. He had exclusive use of the desk, filing cabinet, and computer in his office. Leventhal did not share use of his computer with other employees in the Accounting Bureau nor was there evidence that visitors or the public had access to his computer. 32 We are aware that [p]ublic employees' expectations of privacy in their offices, desks, and file cabinets, like similar expectations of employees in the private sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation. Id. Construing the evidence in favor of Leventhal, as we must in reviewing this grant of summary judgment against him, we do not find that the DOT either had a general practice of routinely conducting searches of office computers or had placed Leventhal on notice that he should have no expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer. Cf. United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2000) (finding no legitimate expectation of privacy in Internet use when employer's known policy allowed monitoring of all file transfers, all websites visited, and all e-mail messages); Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding no legitimate expectation of privacy in office, desk, and file cabinets in light of the unique relationship between a judge and her law clerk necessitating a distinctive open access to documents). 33 Viewing the DOT anti-theft policy in the light most favorable to Leventhal, we find that it did not prohibit the mere storage of personal materials in his office computer. Rather, the anti-theft policy prohibited using state equipment for personal business without defining further these terms. John Samaniuk, acting director of the DOT's Office of Internal Audits and Investigations, testified at Leventhal's disciplinary hearing that an employee would not violate state policies by keeping a personal checkbook in an office drawer, even though it would take up space there. Under the circumstances presented here, we cannot say that the same anti-theft policy prohibited Leventhal from storing personal items in his office computer. See O'Connor, 480 U.S. at 719 (plurality opinion) (finding a reasonable expectation of privacy at least in [an office] desk and file cabinets). 34 Although the DOT technical support staff had access to all computers in the DOT offices, their maintenance of these computers was normally announced and the one example in the record of an unannounced visit to Leventhal's computer was only to change the name of a server. DOT personnel might also need, at times, to search for a document in an unattended computer, but there was no evidence that these searches were frequent, widespread, or extensive enough to constitute an atmosphere so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable. Id. at 718 (plurality opinion). This type of infrequent and selective search for maintenance purposes or to retrieve a needed document, justified by reference to the special needs of employers to pursue legitimate work-related objectives, does not destroy any underlying expectation of privacy that an employee could otherwise possess in the contents of an office computer. The Supreme Court has concluded that `[c]onstitutional protection against unreasonable searches by the government does not disappear merely because the government has the right to make reasonable intrusions in its capacity as employer.' Id. at 717-18 (plurality opinion quoting concurring opinion of Scalia, J) (emphasis in original). 4