Case Summary
In this case, you have been notified by Mr. Hirum Andfirum, Human Resources Director for the Makestuff Company, that the company has just terminated Mr. Got Yourprop, a former engineer in the company’s New Products Division, for the cause. Mr. Andfirum tells you that at Mr. Yourprop’s exit interview earlier that day, the terminated employee made several statements to the effect of “it is okay because I have a new job already and they were VERY happy to have me come from Makestuff, with ALL I have to offer.” Mr. Yourprop’s statements made Mr. Andfirum fear he might be taking Makestuff’s intellectual property with him to his new employer (undoubtedly a Makestuff competitor). In particular, Mr. Andfirum is worried about the loss of the source code for “Product X,” which the company is counting on to earn millions in revenue over the next three years. Mr. Andfirum provides you with a copy of the source code to use in your investigation. Lastly, Mr. Andfirum tells you to remember that the Company wants to retain the option to refer the investigation to law enforcement in the future, so anything you do should be with a thought about later potential admissibility in court.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” While the 4th Amendment is most commonly interpreted to only affect/restrict governmental power (e.g., law enforcement), the fact that a formal criminal investigation is a possibility (and the Company has no desire to be named in a civil lawsuit) means you must consider its effect your actions.
Search of a private vehicle by the company
The employee’s right to privacy at the workplace majorly depends on the sector their employer operates in – public or private. While public employees are provided with greater protection, private sector employers may engage in workplace searches in case they have a “justifiable reason related to the nature of employment” (Workplace Searches, 2015, para. 7). The vehicle parked at a company’s lot is still Mr. Yourprop’s private property. Going through with the search the company would breach the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy and expose itself to a potential lawsuit (Workplace Searches, 2015). At the same time, if the company has a clearly stated policy and notifies the workers that their cars parked on its property are subject to random searches (Smith & Burg, 2015).
Search of a personal vehicle by police investigators
The police forces require a warrant to search private property (When Can the Police Search You or Your Property? 2015). The suspicion that the evidence of intellectual property theft may be found in the vehicle provides a sufficient ground for the warrant in case the judge is convinced that the reason to look for crime evidence in this vehicle is valid (When Can the Police Search You or Your Property? 2015). The police may search the vehicle legally without a warrant, but these actions would require the consent of the car owner.
Search of the gym locker
The search of Yourprop’s assigned locker in the Company’s on-site gym for digital evidence can be conducted by the company authorities in case of the company’s policies permit such searches, and the employees are notified about this practice (O’Connor, 2014). Such searches are viewed as the implied right of the employer to protect their intellectual property from theft.
Search of a locked desk
In the case, K-Mart Corp. v. Trotti, the worker sued the employer for searching the locker protected by the lock the employee purchased and placed herself without a requirement to provide the combination for the lock to the employer (Searches at Work – Legal Issues to Consider, n. d.). In the case of Yourprop’s desk, the company has a master key to it, so the search can be conducted warrantlessly. The case of the United States v. Chandler also shows a precedent that the property of a suspended employee left on the territory of the company also can be searched as it is considered abandoned (Allred, 2002).
Company’s handbook
The Company’s “Employee Handbook” provides notification for the workers that anything brought onto the Company’s property, including the employees themselves, is subject to random search for items belonging to the Company. Your prop has the handbook, but his copy does not have a sign stating that he has received the notification. In this case, the absence of the signature does not matter because the fact that Yourprop has the handbook signifies the fact that he was notified. The absence of a signature may mean that Yourprop disagrees with this policy, but this does not extinguish the employer’s right to search.
Security checkpoint
The purpose of the security checkpoint at Make stuff Company can be ordered to check Yourprop’s bag as the stolen source code may be regarded as a material detrimental to the workplace environment. The fact that the checkpoint usually checks only the ID cards does not depower it from doing a full search if there is a suspicion.
Permission and authority for the workplace search
As an InfoSec specialist of Makestuff Company, before beginning the search of Mr. Yourprop’s working area, I have to ask for permission from the manager whom I represent – the person who has initiated the investigation concerning private security. Besides, an authority required for the search of the working area is an attesting witness – an individual who will observe the search conducted by the InforSec specialist and sign the evidence custody document to ensure its security and validity (Attesting Witness, n. d.). The individual invited as an attesting witness is to be disinterested in the situation to avoid bias. The full name, last name, and title of the witness will need to be documented and confirmed by their signature.
Digital evidence identification
The first digital evidence present in Yourprop’s working area is the voice recorder. It might contain data in the form of audio records that may be helpful with the investigation and help the searcher prove whether Yourprop has committed a theft of the company’s intellectual property. The second digital evidence is a hard drive with a torn-off sticker. It might hold the company’s intellectual property (the source code data for Product X). The third digital object is a thumb drive that also may contain the source code.
Non-digital evidence identification
The first piece of non-digital evidence located in the working area of Yourprop is a white notepad with the NASA logo in the upper left corner. It contains names of people Yourprop communicated with recently; they may help the investigators to learn more about his actions. The second piece of non-digital evidence is the yellow sticker note attached to the bottom of the monitor. It contains codes of some kind that are identified as belonging to disks 1 and 3 – this information may refer to the disks identified as digital evidence. The third non-digital evidence is a yellow sticker note located on the table next to the thumb drive. It has information that might be a password for something. All of these notes need to be photographed for further investigation before being collected.
Custody document
The documentation of the three digital pieces of evidence provided in the custody document is incomplete. The description of the first item (the voice recorder) does not include the shape of the object and its size. The description is too general and does not inform the reader about the actual appearance of the objects and what buttons, stickers, information, or ports are located on their different sides. The description of the second item (hard drive) does not name the object, but only its manufacturer. The size of the object in inches also has to be mentioned. Besides, there is a serial number on the object that must be documented. The third item is documented in detail, but the description needs to mention the tube-like shape of the object.
Storing the evidence
The digital and non-digital evidence collected from the working area of Yourprop is to be placed in secure and hermetic plastic bags and stored in a secure cabinet or a strongbox protected by a code lock. Besides, the evidence requires mild temperature conditions (no extreme heat or cold) with normal humidity so that the devices are kept fully functional for further investigation.
Reference List
Allred, S. (2002). Employee Privacy and Workplace Searches. Web.
Attesting Witness. (n. d.). Web.
O’Connor, B. (2014). Searches in the Workplace – What Employers Need to Know. Web.
Searches at Work – Legal Issues to Consider. (n. d.). Web.
Smith, D. V., & Burg, J. (2015). What Are the Limits of Employee Privacy? Web.
When Can the Police Search You or Your Property? (2015). Web.
Workplace Searches. (2015). Web.