AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Search and Seizure
A lieutenant at a
county juvenile detention center was fired for testing positive for cocaine
during a random drug test. In a lawsuit against the county, he and a number of
his co-workers claimed that the drug test was an illegal search violative of
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as breaching their employment
contracts. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants,
ruling that the drug testing furthered the county’s interest in ensuring
the welfare and safety of the detained juveniles, and did not violate any of
the plaintiffs’ rights. Their expectation of privacy was diminished as
correctional employees and the drug test was minimally invasive, Their
Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on deprivation of
property failed because the sheriff's practices and the county's personnel
policies did not show that they had a protected property interest in continued
employment. Washington v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Co., #15-3181. 847 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2017).
A
number of police officers claimed that two other officers violated their Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they complied with a court order to obtain
DNA samples from them to exclude them as possible contributors of DNA at a
crime scene. The samples were of saliva, obtained by use ol a mouth swab. A
federal appeals court ruled that the court order in question satisfied the
Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, and that no undue intrusion occurred as
the use of buccal swabs was brief and minimal, intrusions that involve almost
no risk, trauma, or pain. As to a reasonable expectation of privacy, it was
reasonable to require officers to produce such samples to to demonstrate that
DNA left at a crime scene was not theirs and was not the result of inadvertent
contamination of the crime scene by on-duty officers. Bill v. Brewer, #13-15844, 799 F.3d 1295 (9th Cir. 2015).
A detective at a
Veterans Administration medical center placed a hidden surveillance camera in
the ceiling of an office at the center which female officers used as a changing
area, capturing images of female officers dressing and undressing. A female
officer learned that images of her changing were captured, and she sued the
detective for unconstitutional search in violation of her Fourth Amendment
rights. A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that the detective was not
entitled to qualified immunity as the right of employees to be free from such
unreasonable searches was clearly established. The court rejected the argument
that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act (FECA) were the appropriate remedies instead for the
plaintiff's claims, as FECA did not cover lawsuits against co-employees and the
installation of the camera illegally was hard to characterize as an
"injury by accident," or a "disease proximately caused by
employment." The detective's actions were also not a "personnel
action" covered by the CSRA. Gustafson v. Adkins, #15-1055, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 17972 (7th Cir.).
Police officials did not violate the Fourth
Amendment rights of police officers by searching them after the residents of a
home that they were searching accused them of stealing $1,750 in cash during
the search. A reasonable person in the plaintiffs' position would not have
feared arrest or detention if they had refused the defendants' request to
search them for the money. The fact that one of the plaintiffs agreed to the
search only because he was taking a nonprescription supplement to clean his
colon and therefore had an immediate need to use the restroom and couldn't do
so until he had been searched did not turn what occurred into a
"seizure." Carter v. City of Milwaukee, #13-2187, (7th Cir.).
A New York City Police Department order requires
that any officer who fires his weapon and such firing results in injury or
death to be administered a breathalyzer. Rejecting a Fourth Amendment challenge
to the order, a federal appeals court found that the order was aimed at both
personnel management and bolstering public confidence in the police, and
thereby fell within the definition of "special needs" when analyzing
the reasonableness of the search under the Fourth Amendment. These concerns were
different from ordinary law enforcement concerns, so the warrant and probable
cause requirements applicable to law enforcement searches did not apply. These
warrantless suspicionless tests were reasonable as a matter of law since the
special needs involved outweighed any privacy interests of the officers
concerning whether they had consumed alcohol. Lynch v. City of New York,
#12-3089, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 23074 (2nd Cir.).
The New Jersey Supreme Court has required law
enforcement officers to get a warrant to obtain tracking information from a
cell phone. While the decision came in a criminal case, the reasoning is broad
enough to cover other situations. The decision holds that individuals have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location data under the
state Constitution. State v. Earls, #A-53-11/068765, 2013 N.J. Lexis 735
During an investigation of a state employee, New
York state investigators attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to
his car, to look into suspicions that he was submitting false time reports.
Based on the evidence gathered, he was fired. The highest court in New York
ruled that the attachment of the device was a search not requiring a warrant
and was within the workplace exception to the warrant requirement. At the same
time, the search was not reasonable, as the employee's movements were tracked
on evenings, weekends, and when he was on vacation, rendering it excessively
intrusive. The employer failed to make a reasonable effort to avoid tracking the
employees movements outside of business hours, rendering the entire search
unreasonable. The evidence was ordered suppressed. Cunningham v. State Dep't of
Labor, #123, 2013 N.Y. Lexis 1729.
A drug suspect frisked by officers claimed that
they stole money from him. At headquarters, the officers learned that an
internal affairs complaint had been filed and they were taken to an office
where they did not feel free to leave. They were instructed to stay in the
office and not use their cell phones, and later told to remove their jackets,
pull out their pant legs, pull down their socks, and open their wallets.
Fearing discipline and loss of employment, they obeyed. They were then
questioned and allowed to leave. Their lockers were allegedly also searched.
Ruling on a federal civil rights lawsuit by the officers, a federal appeals
court upheld summary judgment for the defendants. Police administrators who
engage in employment-related, non-criminal detentions do not seize officers for
Fourth Amendment purposes. The searches in question were reasonable. Gwynn v.
City of Philadelphia, #12-2208, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12453 (3rd Cir.).
Three unions representing various ranks of a city
police department challenged a departmental order requiring that any police
officer involved in a shooting resulting in injury or death take a
breathalyzer. They claimed that this constituted an unreasonable search in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected that argument, granting
summary judgment to the city. The court found that the searches represented by
the breathalyzer tests were justified under the special needs doctrine which
has been used to justify drug and alcohol testing for railway employees
involved in train accidents. The primary purpose of the searches was not crime
control, but personnel management--to deter officers from becoming intoxicated
and discharging their weapons. These special needs outweigh any privacy
interest that officers might have in not submitting to the tests. Palladino v.
City of New York, #07 CV 9246, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90291 (S.D.N.Y.).
In a criminal prosecution for drug trafficking, a
federal appeals court held that a warrant was not required under the Fourth
Amendment for GPS cell phone tracking of a suspect's real-time physical
location. The federal agents used data being sent by the GPS device in the
defendant's pay-as-you-go cell phone. The defendant had no reasonable
expectation of privacy in the GPS data since the agents were tracking a known
number and he was voluntarily using it while traveling on public roads. The
court also commented that no "extreme" comprehensive tracking was
present in the immediate case. U.S.A. v. Skinner, #09-6497, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 16920, 2012 Fed App. 262P (6th Cir.).
A city concerned about the suspected ongoing
theft of water services decided to perform a water use survey using current and
retired city employees as a test group. It felt this would work well, as the
city had good information about how many people lived in the employees'
households. Finding that employees from the public services department appeared
to be paying far lower water bills, the city decided to look into this more by
sending inspectors to their homes to attempt to inspect the water meters to see
if they were working properly or had been tampered with. Employees who refused
to let the inspectors enter were informed that they had to consent to entry
"or else." A number of employees whose water meters had been
sabotaged were fired. A group of terminated employees sued city officials for
violation of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and
seizure. Two defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth
Amendment claim, since it was not clearly established that "public
employees cannot be given a stark choice between asserting a constitutional
right and keeping their jobs." The plaintiffs further failed to show that
they were fired in unlawful retaliation for trying to assert their Fourth
Amendment rights. The court also rejected First Amendment right to association
and municipal liability claims. Clemente v. Vaslo, #10-2506, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 9746; 2012 Fed. App. 0135P (6th Cir.).
The U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS
device to a vehicle to track a criminal suspect constitutes a search under the
Fourth Amendment. It upheld the ruling of a federal appeals court suppressing
the evidence and overturning a conviction based on it, since the device was
attached without a valid warrant authorizing it. The Court declined to consider
the government's alternative argument that the attachment and use of the device
was a reasonable search, because it was not raised in the courts below. U.S. v.
Jones, #10-1259, 2012 WL 171117, 2012 U.S. Lexis 1063.
Officials at a correctional training
facility were entitled to qualified immunity in a civil rights lawsuit by
employees subjected to screening with a portable ion scanner as they entered
the building, and then to a body cavity search if this resulted in a positive
alert for drugs. No clearly established federal law gave notice that attempting
to keep contraband out of a correctional building with these methods was
illegal. Braun v. Maynard, #10-1401, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 14940 (4th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds conviction of a person
who downloaded kiddy porn on a workplace computer. Appellant had no reasonable
expectation of privacy . U.S. v. Ziegler, # 05-30177, 456 F.3d 1138, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 20255 (9th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
Illinois and Michigan determine whether search
warrants are needed for arson searches. People v. Patrick, 355 N.E.2d 224
(Ill.App. 1976).
Officers responding to fire call could forcibly
open door; contraband observable in plain view was lawfully seized. State v.
Jones, 573 P.2d 1134 (Kan. App. 1978).
Search by Oregon firemen and police of fire scene
over a period of days without a warrant ruled as valid. State of Oregon v.
Felger, 526 P.2d 611 (Or.App. 1974).
Evidence from swabbing of suspected bomber's
hands for traces of explosive materials held admissible. U.S. v. Bridges, 499
F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1974).
See also: Disciplinary
Investigations and Disciplinary Searches (for
search of employees).