In this chapter, the authors investigate the concept of privacy and whether government employers’ warrantless searches may be considered reasonable and justified. To begin with, in the Constitution, there is no such word as privacy, but after interpreting the Constitutional Amendments, three types of privacy rights have been created by the Supreme Court (Halbert and Ingulli). First, the government is prevented from interfering with people’s private families and sexual life. Second, intimate information, such as one’s sexual or medical history, should not be publicized by the authorities (Halbert and Ingulli 1). Finally, corporations and individuals are protected by the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable or unwarranted government seizures or searches.
Specific claims related to the Fourth Amendment privacy may arise in the workplace. For example, if “a regulatory agency searches a business for evidence of noncompliance, or when a public employer checks the files in an employee’s office to investigate possible misconduct” (Halbert and Ingulli 1). Unfortunately, even if it is actually a violation of privacy, it is up to the judge to decide which is more significant, the government’s need to conduct a search or employees’ privacy interests. Two court cases are discussed by the authors to explain this point.
First, in 2010, there was a City of Ontario v. Quon, in which the search of a public employee’s text messages was involved. Jeff Quon, a member of SWAT, used his working pager for personal purposes and, after his department obtained a transcript of his texts, he challenged the search (Halbert and Ingulli 2). The Supreme Court stated that if such measures were not intrusive but justified at their inception and work-related, it was reasonable to conduct a warrantless search.
Then, in 2014, there was another case – Riley v. California. It also proved an increasingly significant role of mobile telephones in the lives of all Americans, and it became evident that an exhaustive search of a house may expose less than a phone. In that case, the arrested men’s cell phones were allowed to prove their fault and find the locations of crack cocaine, ammunition, and guns (Halbert and Ingulli 3). However, their conviction was overturned as the judge admitted the violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Work Cited
Halbert, Terry, and Elaine Ingulli. “Privacy: Technology, Surveillance, & Freedom.” Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, Cengage Learning, 2018.