Opinion ID: 781964
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Workplace

Text: 18 In holding that workplace searches undertaken either for noninvestigatory work-related purposes or to investigate work-related misconduct may be predicated on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause, the Court in Ortega defined the workplace as those areas ... that are related to work and are generally within the employer's control. 480 U.S. at 715, 107 S.Ct. 1492. As an example, at a hospital, the hallways, cafeteria, offices, desks, and file cabinets, among other areas, are part of the workplace. Id. at 715-16, 107 S.Ct. 1492. However, personal possessions on workplace territory, such as closed personal luggage or a handbag, would not necessarily be considered part of the workplace context. Id. at 716, 107 S.Ct. 1492. 19 Wiley contends that Ortega is inapplicable to this case because his car was like a closed briefcase or suitcase that under Ortega might not be in the workplace. We disagree. Wiley's car was parked in the Institution's parking lot, which was on agency property, adjacent to the Institution, and available to accommodate employees and visitors of the Institution. The agency maintained control over the parking lot, as evidenced by the notice posted at the entrance of the parking lot advising visitors and employees that [a]ll persons entering upon these premises are subject to routine searches of their person, property ( including vehicles ), and packages (emphasis added). Unlike a situation in which a public employee brings a closed suitcase to work without any expectation that it would be searched, Wiley was on notice that his car could be searched. Therefore, Wiley's car, as situated in the Institution's parking lot, was within the workplace as set forth in Ortega.