See also: Privacy Rights
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Officer Privacy and a Citizen’s Right to Video-Record Police Activity, 2009 (5) AELE Mo. L.J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: The City of Ontario v. Quon Supreme Court Decision, 2010 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 501.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: The Use of Personally-Owned Mobile Phone Cameras and Pocket Video Cameras by Public Safety Personnel,
2012 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 501.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Video and Audio Taping Police Activity, 2012 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 201

     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.).
    A former police officer and his wife sued the city he used to work for alleged violation of a section of the Federal Wiretap Act in using emails between the plaintiffs to conduct an investigation into the alleged misuse of the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System to discover information about who owned certain cars. While one section of the Act allows lawsuits against a person or entity for violations, the section the plaintiffs sued under only allows lawsuits against "persons." As a municipality is not a person for purposes of that section of the statute, there could be no viable claim against a city for intentionally disclosing or using communications intercepted in violation of the statute. Seitz v. City of Elgin, #13-1045, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12883 (7th Cir.).
     An Illinois eavesdropping statute violated the First Amendment to the extent that it could be applied to prohibit the open audio taping of police officers in public performing their official duties. Any supposed governmental interest in protecting conversational privacy was not implicated when officers performing their duties engage in communications audible to those witnessing the events. In restricting more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests, the statute was likely to violate the free speech and free press guarantees of the First Amendment. An injunction against enforcement of the statute was therefore ordered. The U.S. Supreme Court has now declined to review the decision. ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, #11-1286, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, Alvarez v. ACLU, 2012 U.S. Lexis 8999.
     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.).
     An undercover drug enforcement agent who accidentally shot himself in the leg during a speech to about 50 children and parents at a community center failed to show that his employer violated his privacy rights or was responsible for a video clip of the incident showing up on the YouTube website. The video of the one hour anti-drug speech had been made by a parent. Copies of the video were made as part of a DEA internal investigation of the shooting. The court ruled that the video clip was not a part of the DEA's "system of records," and further that it had never been shown who was responsible for releasing the video clip to the public."The widespread circulation of the accidental discharge video demonstrates the need for every federal agency to safeguard video records with extreme diligence in this internet age of iPhones and YouTube with their instantaneous and universal reach." The court did say that the DEA’s handling of the video, including creating several versions of it, “undoubtedly increased the likelihood of disclosure and, although not an abuse of a system of records, is far from a model of agency treatment of private data.” Paige v. Drug Enforcement Administration, #11-5023, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 906 (D.C. Cir.).
     A female deputy sheriff who was secretly videotaped by a co-worker in a decontamination area of a hospital following a shower could proceed with her privacy lawsuit against the county. She was required to undergo the decontamination shower after being exposed to a large number of fleas while conducting a search of a building. The video footage was allegedly put on a departmental computer and disclosed to others over the municipal network. The court held that the deputy had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shower and the decontamination room following the shower. The co-worker who created the video served as the department's computer administrator. The video had images revealing the deputy's back, shoulders, and limbs, with the rest of her body was covered only with "paper sheets, almost like when you're at a doctor's office." Doe v. Luzerne County, #10-3921, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 20650 (3rd Cir.).
     A police chief did not violate a state eavesdropping law by installing surveillance software on a department owned mobile data terminal used by an officer. There was no showing that the senders of the pornographic images intercepted intended for them to be private. The officer was properly discharged for accessing pornography on the device while on duty, in violation of departmental rules. Hurst v. Bd. of the Fire & Police Comm'n for Clinton, #4-10-0964, 2011 Ill. App. Lexis 734 (4th Dist.).
     Reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court has upheld the search of a police officer’s text messages on a government-owned pager. A warrantless review of the officer’s pager transcript was reasonable because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and was not excessive in scope. City of Ontario v. Quon, #08–1332, 2010 U.S. Lexis 4972.
    After more than 15 years, the federal government pays $3 million to a former DEA agent to drop his suit for privacy violations. The plaintiff was stationed in Burma, and claimed that the CIA engaged in unlawful surveillance of his telephone conversations. “Now this Court is called upon to approve a $ 3,000,000 payment to an individual plaintiff by the United States, and again it does not appear that any government officials have been held accountable for this loss to the taxpayer. This is troubling to the Court.” Horn v. Huddle, #94-1756, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 30626 (D.D.C. 2010).
     A game & fish employee who secretly recorded a supervisor did not violate federal or state eavesdropping laws, and the contents are admissible evidence. Perraglio v. N.M. Game & Fish, #6:08-cv-00351, PACER Doc. #58 (Unpub. D.N.M.).
     Seventh Circuit rejects an action brought by a jailer who claimed that she was fired in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint. She unlawfully tape-recorded her meeting with superiors. "Title VII does not grant employees license to engage in dubious self-help activities to obtain evidence." Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, #07-1903 (7th Cir.).
     Ninth Circuit Court rules in favor of a police officer whose text messages were read by his superiors without his permission, even though the city paid for the wireless service. The three-judge panel's holding would require management to obtain a warrant before they could access an employee's e-mail or pager text messages. The court found that a wireless firm violated the federal Stored Communications Act, which prohibits providers from divulging, without a warrant, the contents of any communication that is maintained on the service. The fact that the city had informed employees that it had the right to read e-mails and text messages did not override an expectation of privacy by employees. Quon v. Arch Wireless Oper. Co., #07-55282, 529 F.3d 892, 27 IER Cases (BNA) 1377, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12766 (9th Cir.).
     Federal court dismisses privacy lawsuit filed by a federal employee, who claimed a back injury, and was videotaped by contract investigators while lifting heavy boxes into his pickup truck. Because the taping occurred while outdoors and adjacent to a public road, the employee lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ryan v. Whitehurst, #SA-07-CA-723, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36432 (W.D. Tex.).
     In an action brought by VA hospital police officers because of management's surreptitious video surveillance of their break room, a federal court holds that the officers lacked a valid claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, although management had a legitimate interest in eradicating sexual discrimination in the workplace, there was insufficient evidence in the record to warrant an encroachment into the officers' privacy via surveillance video. Rosario v. U.S.A., #Civ-06-1517, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21297 (D.P.R.).
     Because an emergency communications call center's recording equipment cannot discern whether an outbound call is of a personal nature or an emergency callback, all outbound calls were taped without notice to the caller. A Florida appellate court affirms the dismissal of a privacy suit brought by employees. Brillinger v. City of Lake Worth, #4D07-2033, 2008 Fla. App. Lexis 5200 (4th Dist.).
     A detective lacked qualified immunity from an officers' claim that he violated Fourth Amendment by installing a warrantless video-surveillance system in the locker room, in response to reported theft. Officers did not receive notice about system; the locker room was used for private activities and was not open to public. Bernhard v. City of Ontario, #06-55736, 27 IER Cases (BNA) 495, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6404 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     N.J. Public Employment Relations Cmsn. declines to find, as a matter of law, that management unlawfully installed videocameras in a hallway and at the front desk of a police station, without bargaining with the union. Because this was an issue of first impression, neither party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and an evidentiary hearing is required. City of Paterson v. PBA L-1, Docket #CO-2005-138, P.E.R.C. #2006 -50, 32 NJPER 5, 2006 NJPER (LRP) Lexis 4 (NJ PERC 2006). {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that because the bargaining agreement prohibited electronic performance monitoring of employees, videocameras could not be installed in work areas for security purposes, even if they lacked audio capabilities. Berkley School Dist. and Educ. Assn., 122 LA (BNA) 356 (Daniel, 2005; rptd. 2006). [2006 FP Aug]
     NLRB finds that an employer could erect no trespassing signs giving notice that all activities were being monitored by video camera. Signs acknowledging the existence of video surveillance did not restrain, coerce, or interfere with the employee's rights to organize. Consolidated Biscuit and AFL-CIO, #8-CA-33402, 346 NLRB No. 101 (NLRB 2006). {N/R}
     Management's placement of a concealed video-only camera in an unlocked computer room, which was shared by two schoolteachers, was not a privacy violation. Crist v. Alpine Union Sch. Dist., #D044775, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 8699 (2005). {N/R}
     Campus police, who suspected that a cashier was stealing money, lawfully installed a hidden video camera aimed at an employee's desk. Cowles v. State, #S-8831 (Opin. No. 5418), 23 P.3d 1168 (Alas. 2001); cert. den., 122 S.Ct. 1072 (2002). [2002 FP May]
     Appeals court in Ohio upholds covert video surveillance of an employee's break room. Brannen v. Bd. of Educ., #CA2000-11-098, 2001 Ohio App. Lexis 3165, 17 IER Cases (BNA) 1405 (Unpub. 2001). [2001 FP 158]
     En banc federal appeals court holds that even if a bargaining agreement expressly authorizes surveillance which is illegal under state law, it would be void and unenforceable under federal labor law. Federal bargaining laws cannot not permit employers and unions to agree to violate state criminal laws. Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, #98-55657, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 13385, 255 F.3d 683, 167 LRRM (BNA) 2353 (9th Cir. en banc). [2001 FP 125-6]
     Police Chief's warrantless cloning of a pager issued to an officer, without notice of routine or random monitoring, was unlawful under the federal Communications Privacy Act. Adams v. City of Battle Creek, #99- 1543, 250 F.3d 980, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 8806, 2001 FED App. 0157P, 69 L.W. 1717 (6th Cir. 5/11/01). [2001 FP 109-110]
     Police officers did not need a warrant to secretly videotape a criminal suspect at work. His work station was in view of coworkers and the public. Cowles v. State, #S-8831, 23 P.3d 1168, 2001 Alas. Lexis 67, 69 CrL (BNA) 341, 69 L.W. 1783 (Alaska, 6/8/01). {N/R}
     N.H. upholds use of a concealed videocamera in the nonprivate areas of worksites in public buildings. State v. McLellan, #98239, 744 A.2d 611, 1999 N.H. Lexis 162. [2000 FP 126]
     Federal court refuses to dismiss criminal charges against NYPD officer who intercepted the Police Commissioner's alphanumeric pager messages. U.S. v. Sills, #99 Cr. 1133, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5570 (S.D.N.Y.). [2000 FP 109]
     A divided Ninth Circuit panel rejects a suit by employees who were videotaped in workplace restrooms; the right to sue was preempted by the bargaining agreement. Cramer v. Consol. Frtwys., #98-56154, 209 F.3d 1122, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 7759, 164 LRRM (BNA) 2129, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 321, 00 C.D.O.S. 3184 (9th Cir.). [2000 FP 92-3]
     Federal appeals court overturns verdict against a municipality, but not the chief, for illegally taping personal calls on a non-emergency line. Abbott v. Winthrop Harbor, #98-3135, 205 F.3d 976, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 3384, 16 IER Cases 32; reh. & en banc hrg. den. 2000 U.S.App. Lexis 6359 (7th Cir.). [2000 FP 76-7]
     California courts uphold a $634,000 verdict for secretly videotaping fellow employees in the workplace, even though coworkers had a limited expectation of privacy. Sanders v. ABC, 20 Cal.4th 907, 978 P.2d 67, 1999 Cal. Lexis 3900, 15 IER Cases (BNA) 385; on remand (Unpub. Cal.App., 2d Dist.). [2000 FP 28-9]
     Employer did not violate either federal or state wiretap laws when it installed a video camera in the manager's office, to learn who was turning off the surveillance system; the camera recorded no sound and showed only movements of workers in the office. Audenreid v. Circuit City, 97 F.Supp.2d 660, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7098, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 651 (E.D.Pa.). {N/R}
     Connecticut to pay up to $17 million to thousands of persons whose phone calls were improperly recorded by state police over a 10-year period. State Police Litigation (In re); prior decis. at 88 F.3d 111, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 15951 (2nd Cir.) and 888 F.Supp. 1235 (D. Ct. 1995). [1999 FP 141]
     Judge reduces $33 million verdict against fire chief and city to $1.75 million. Suit was brought by 11 firefighters for secretly taping station phone calls. Abramczyk v. Ahles, 96 640658 NO (Cir. Ct., Wayne Co., Mich.). [1999 FP 141 & 61]
     NLRB reaffirms prior order prohibiting an employer from videotaping union picketing activities. Clock Elec. and IBEW L- 38, # 8-CA-26560 & 26646, 1999 NLRB Lexis 503, 328 NLRB #141. [1999 FP 141-2]
     A county agency director who secretly tape-recorded four employees' office conversations is personally liable under the federal law against wiretapping. Dorris v. Absher, #97-6206, 179 F.3d 420, 15 IER Cases (BNA) 193, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 11164 (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     California appellate court, and federal appeals panel in Boston, reject employee suits claiming that workplace videotaping violates their constitutional rights. One involved the secret taping of an office in the county jail; the other site is an alarm office in the phone company, where workers knew of the camera. Sacramento Co. Dep. Sheriffs Assn. v. Sacramento Co., 1996 Cal.App. Lexis 1216, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 12 IER Cases (BNA) 723; Vega-Rodriguez v. P.R. Tel. Co., 1997 U. S. App. Lexis 6517, 110 F.3d 174 (1st Cir.). [1997 FP 75-6]
     The installation of a silent video camera in locker area, which was also utilized for accessing heating and air conditioning systems, was not an “interception” under the Federal Wiretap Act. The Fourth Amendment was not violated because the users of the locker room could be seen by other employees walking into the storage area and because installation of the video camera was based on reports of weapons being brought into the area. Thompson v. Johnson Co. Comm. Coll., 930 F.Supp. 501 (D.Kan. 1996), affirmed, 108 F.3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     A coworker's secret tape recording of plaintiff's oral conversations in the workplace violated her common law right to privacy. WVIT Inc. v. Gray, 1996 Conn. Super. Lexis 2841. {N/R}
     Article: Use and Abuse of Surveillance Videos, 85 (1) Ill. Bar. J. 22-27 (Jan. 1997); AELE File Ref. #5638. {N/R}
     Appellate court rejects suit by officer who objected to his dept. monitoring and taping stationhouse phone calls. Curley v. Bd. Trustees of Suffern, 624 N.Y.S.2d 265 (A.D. 1995). [1996 FP 28]
     Employer that attached voice-activated recorders to its phone lines violated the federal wiretap statute. Pascale v. Carolina Frt. Car., #94-325-JCL, 10 IER Cases (BNA) 1804 (D.N.J. 1995). [1996 FP 13]
     Federal appeals court affirms right of a California police officer to sue his department for secretly videotaping his conversation during a internal investigation arising from sexual harassment allegations. Decision based on Cal. Penal Code Sec. 632. Rattray v. City of National City, 51 F.3d 793 (2d opin., 9th Cir. 1995); 36 F.3d 1480 (1st opin.). {N/R}
     WV trial court awards damages to employees who were videotaped in their locker rooms, as part of an employer investigation of worker drug abuse. Anderson v. Monongahela Power Co., Monongahela Co. Cir. Ct. #92-C-483; 39 (1) Security Management (ASIS) 72 (1994). [1995 FP 62]
     Arbitrator upholds a 4-day suspension for the illegal audiotaping of coworker. Tallahassee (City of) and IAFF L-2339, FMCS 93-25242 (1994); 32 (1592) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1453 (1994). [1995 FP 62]
     Fear of bomb threats did not authorize an employer to clandestinely record its phone lines. Federal appeals panel affirms a damage suit brought by a private security officer after her conversations were covertly taped. Sanders v. R. Bosch Corp., 38 F.3d 736, 10 IER Cases (BNA) 1 (4th Cir. 1994). [1995 FP 45-6]
     In a disability claim hearing, surveillance films were admissible to establish the claimant was engaged in employment. Rossi v. WCAB, 642 A.2d 1153 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994). {N/R}
     Videotape of injured firefighter changing a tire was valid evidence to challenge his right to continued benefits. Large v. Bd. of Mgrs., Retirem. Sys., 623 So.2d 1174 (Ala.App. 1993). [1994 FP 147-8]
     Hawaii suppresses covert videotapes of employee's relaxation area; workers enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hawaii v. Bonnell, 856 P.2d 1265, 8 IER Cases 1226 (Haw. 1993). [1994 FP 5]
     Federal court dismisses suit by 33 police officers who sued city because a covert videocamera was installed in the men's room. D'Ambrosio v. City of Concord, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2093, 31 (1504) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 290 (N.D.Cal. 1993). [1993 FP 86]
     Videotaping of employees in the workplace is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. In re Amoco Petrol., 7 IER Cases (BNA) 854, 7th Cir. 1992). {N/R}
     Federal appeals panel upholds court-authorized video surveillance of a business premises. Silent video surveillance is not prohibited or regulated by the Federal Wiretapping Act. U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991) 970 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. en banc, 1992); cert. den. 506 U.S. 1005 (1992). {N/R} [1992 FP 5]
     Videotape of unlawful behavior in the workplace is allowed into evidence in a criminal case, because the camera was not concealed. U.S. v. O'Reilly, 7 IER Cases (BNA) 665 (E.D. Pa. 1992). [1992 FP 116-7]
     Federal court allows police dept. to tape all telephone calls to or from the station over "beeped" lines. Damage suit by officers and their families is rejected. P.B.A. Local 38 v. Woodbridge Police Dept., 134 F.R.D. 96; 832 F.Supp. 808 (D.N.J. 1993). [1994 FP 152-3]
     House Bill to curb electronic monitoring of employees wins subcommittee approval. Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act, H.R. 1900. Senate version is S. 984. [1994 FP 105]
     Federal court dismisses a civil rights suit filed by a former dispatcher; her personal phone calls on a police line were routinely taped and monitored. Hart v. Clearfield City, #91-NC-46B, 815 F.Supp. 1544 (D. Utah 1993). [1993 FP 92]
     Police chief could tap departmental phone to seek evidence that subordinate violated departmental rules. "..routine, nonsurreptitious recording of a police investigative line... where officer should have known the line was monitored, was in the ordinary course of police chief's duties... and is exempted from the statute." Jandak v. Vil. of Brookfield, 520 F.Supp. 815 (N.D. Ill. 1981).
     Washington appeals court reverses $70,000 verdict given ex-employee pension recipient. City videotaped disabled pensioner's activities and was sued for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. Jeffers v. City of Seattle, 597 P.2d 899 (Wash. App. 1979).
     U.S. Appeals Court affirms right of person facing disciplinary charges to tape-record his hearing at his own expense. Rosario v. Amalgamated LGCU 10, 605 F.2d 1228 (2d Cir. 1979).
     Filming of a worker's comp. claimant while he was outdoors, did not violate his privacy rights. McLain v. Boise Cascade, 271 Or. 549, 533 P.2d 343 (1975). {N/R}
     Photographing employees at work is not an invasion of privacy. Truxes v. Kenco, 80 S.D. 104, 119 N.W.2d 914 (1963). {N/R}
     Also see cases under Disciplinary Searches, Disciplinary Surveillance and Privacy Rights.