...The court found that Dow manifested an expectation of privacy in the “interior regions of its plant” meaning by phrase, the open, outdoor spaces between plant buildings. * The District Court held that this expectation of privacy was reasonable, as reflected in part by trade secret protections restricting Dow’s commercial competitors from aerial photography of these exposed areas. * The court also emphasized that camera used to photograph the facility “ saw a great deal more than the human eye could ever see”. Question 2: Did Dow take any steps to protect its privacy? What difference would such steps make? Dow had an actual expectation of privacy in certain parts of its plant, privacy which included the freedom from certain kinds of intrusion. Dow took great pains to be free from ground level intrusion by building a perimeter security fence and employing security guards. Hence, Dow had a kind of actual privacy expectation in these parts of its plant, a privacy interest to be free from ground level intrusions from the street. But Dow did not take any precautions against aerial intrusions, even though the plant was near an airport and within the pattern of planes landing and taking off. If elaborate and expensive measures for ground security show that Dow has an actual expectation of privacy in ground security, as Dow argues, then taking no measure for aerial security should say something about its actual privacy expectation in being free from aerial observation....
Words: 560 - Pages: 3
...LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance January 22, 2012 1. Explain where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace. Human beings need privacy and have a right to expect privacy in certain areas of their lives. The areas where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace are very limited. Common decency precludes monitoring in highly private locations, such as bathrooms. Personal items, such as purses, wallets and gym bags may also be considered to be off-limits. The employee can also reasonably expect privacy during personal telephone calls at work. In Watkins v. L. M. Berry (1983), the court upheld upon appeal that employers must stop monitoring calls upon realization that the call is of a personal nature. Exceptions to this are when employer policy specifically forbids calls of a personal nature. Here the employees need for privacy directly conflict with established policy. Privacy protection may vary with state laws and federal statutes. State laws on privacy in the workplace may differ with some states offering much more privacy protection to the employees than others. For example, Volkert (2005) reported that while electronic surveillance may be allowed in Idaho, it must have a specific purpose and record video only (no audio). Government employees are likely to have greater privacy rights than private sector employees due to protections under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Although, as Halbert...
Words: 1445 - Pages: 6
...University computer. Question 3: Then why wasn’t this search illegal under the 4th Amendment? Why didn’t the court hold this evidence to be inadmissible under the exclusionary rule? The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment, however, a defendant must prove that he has "a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. This, in turn, requires defendant to show both that he has "a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched" and that "that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize." In analyzing whether a defendant employee has reasonable expectation of privacy in spaces or equipment supplied by his employer, courts will examine: (1) The employee's relationship to the item seized. (2) Whether the item was in the immediate control of the employee when it was seized. (3) Whether the employee took actions to maintain his privacy in the item. Even where law enforcement agents...
Words: 902 - Pages: 4
...Assignment One 1 Abstract Many employers recognize that need for a specific policies regarding surveillance or monitoring in the workplace. The primary purpose of such policies is to eliminate any expectation of privacy on the part of an employee utilizing company technologies or property for personal use. However, even when an employer has a policy, it is nonetheless common for employers to tolerate some degree of private usage by employees. This is one dilemma for employers and the main purpose for establishing a "zero tolerance". In any event, the employer's written policy and actual practices should clarify to employees specifically and inform third parties through implied or informed consent the expectations of the employer or business utilizing surveillance. Assignment One 2 Question One 1. Explain where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace. In the office workplace there are typically two types of workspaces, an open area, in which there are several desks and where conversations can be overhead, or an enclosed office, in which—when the door is closed—conversations cannot be heard and where one would expect virtually total privacy. Explain whether it makes a difference if an employee is in an open area or in an enclosed office. Surveillance is becoming commonplace in the work environment. Generally speaking, employers are permitted to monitor by surveillance "public" areas. When surveillance is hidden, however, and when the...
Words: 1870 - Pages: 8
...expect to have privacy in the workplace. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" (U.S. Const., amend. IV.1), however, the Fourth Amendment applies only to government actions, not to actions of private employers. As a result government employees may appear to have a fairly stronger claim for protection against electronic monitoring and surveillance than private sector employees. Thus in the U.S., workers in the workplace, except occasionally in restrooms and employee locker rooms, are not normally protected from surveillance on the grounds that the premises and equipment are possessions of the employer and the employee can have no reasonable expectation of intimacy or protection from employer intrusion. The employee, in the employment-at-will setting, has completely consented to the employer's right to monitor the employee closely "for any reason, no reason, or even reason morally” wrong to lose their job. Employees normally have no expectation of privacy in public or in the workplace. Most courts are employing narrow reasoning when discussing reasonable expectation of privacy on e-mail, using “voluntariness” of e-mail communications and property-based notions of ownership of computer systems to negate employees’ privacy interests in their e-mail communications. Most of employees can expect to have reasonable privacy outside their workplace...
Words: 1695 - Pages: 7
...had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the messages sent to Winchester (8). a. Majority Decision of the Supreme Court 15. The majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts in deciding that Marakah had a direct interest and a subjective expectation of privacy in the text messages he sent to Winchester (21-23). However, they added that the subject matter of the search was the ‘electronic conversation’ between Marakah and Winchester (17). 16. Furthermore, they reasoned that control was only one determining factor in assessing the objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the lower court should not only have applied it to the device, but also to the electronic conversation (44). They held that Marakah’s subjective expectation of privacy in the text messages in Winchester’s phone was objectively reasonable, and that Marakah has standing under s.8 of the Charter (54-55). They also held that the evidence in Winchester’s phone should be excluded under...
Words: 682 - Pages: 3
...1. What constitutes an actual expectation of privacy? There are two types of expectations of privacy: • Subjective expectation of privacy – a certain individual's opinion that a certain location or situation is private; varies greatly from person to person • Objective, legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy – An expectation of privacy generally recognized by society Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are a person's residence or hotel room[1] and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[2] or a phone booth.[3] In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. A well-known example is that there are no privacy rights in garbage left for collection in a public place.[2] Other examples include: pen registers that record the numbers dialed from particular telephones;[4] conversations with others, though there could be a Sixth Amendment violation if the police send an individual to question a defendant who has already been formally charged;[5] a person's physical characteristics, such as voice and handwriting;[6] what is observed pursuant to aerial surveillance that is conducted in public navigable airspace not using equipment that unreasonably enhances the surveying government official's vision;[7][8] anything in open fields (e.g., a barn);[9] smells that...
Words: 657 - Pages: 3
... Week 3 Assignment # 1 LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance By Anthony McKenzie Presented to Prof. Moses Cowan February, 16, 2012 1) Explain where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace. The privacy rights of employees and the infringement on these rights, has caused employees to become even more frightened when it concerns their privacy, and they feel that they are losing these rights because of the advances being made in technology (Privacy in the Workplace and Conducting an Internal Investigation, n.d.). For example, these subsequent cases will explain to us more, about how the United States Supreme Court has come to establish the theory of “privacy” for the people of America (Supreme Court Decisions on Liberty 2012,). Katz vs. United States 389, U.S. 347 (1967) & Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928). Some of the technological tools such as video surveillance cameras, face recognition software, and tracking software programs may be already in use by employers. In particular situations, For example, the employer may want to see closely what it is their employees are doing on company time. Employers may have to use some type of...
Words: 1643 - Pages: 7
...stealing money or not. Although the likelihood of him confessing to stealing money from the students was highly unlikely, however, as an employee, he deserved that much at least. It is understandable that the teachers would expect privacy in their office and locker room because it is in fact where they change and shower, however, when it comes to one specific teacher or coach, it is obvious that you will not have complete privacy there because it is indeed a high traffic area where numerous people enter and exit everyday. In this situation, the...
Words: 658 - Pages: 3
...so they can be seized by an officer without a warrant or probable cause. Open fields do not fall within any of these categories. What does “open fields” exactly mean? Open fields encompass any open, undeveloped property that is not intimately used for dwelling (including curtilage) or business. The main residence on a piece of land, any outbuildings closely connected with and in close proximity to it, and the land immediately surrounding the residence are all considered to be within the curtilage of the land and are areas in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The status of an open field does not change even if a fence secures the property and “no trespassing” signs are erected, Oliver v. United States. (Cuddihy, 2009) In this case the police entered the property of Mr. Oliver and discovered a patch of marijuana being grown. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Oliver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though there was a locked...
Words: 1733 - Pages: 7
...Rashad Watkins Bus 352 Stratford University 11/1/11 How much privacy can your employees expect at work? Today, it's possible for companies to monitor every aspect of what employees do in the office, from email and surfing the Internet to phone conversations. But when are you crossing the line? There are specific laws, rules, and regulations granting certain employee privacy rights. For example, there are laws that create a right to privacy for employee personnel records, medical information, and background screenings. But what about cases in which no specific law creates a right to privacy? Does one exist anyway? The answer is maybe. If no law or regulation exists, whether there is a right to privacy is determined by referring to the "reasonable expectation of privacy." If, under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the employee to expect certain conduct or communications would be considered private, then the courts might deem that a right of privacy existed. Suppose an employer searches an employee's office or cubicle, working files, or locker. Was it reasonable for the employee to believe that his or her office or cubicle is a private area that the employer cannot search without permission? What if the employer's Employee Handbook states: "The Company reserves the right to access and search all offices and work areas on company property, including but not limited to locked and unlocked desks, file cabinets, files...
Words: 714 - Pages: 3
...Workplace Privacy: Privacy Rights in the Workplace Marisol Cortez National University Legal Aspects of Business I Law 304 Jack B. Hamlin, M.S., J.D. October 23, 2011 Abstract Workplace Privacy: Is an employer issued search of employer issued property to their employees a violation of the employees’ Fourth Amendment right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? This paper will examine the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to the case of City of Ontario v. Jeff Quon that has provided a significant change of the views on workplace privacy law in this country. The majority of U.S. employees believe that it is their constitutional right to have reasonable workplace privacy. However, most U.S. employees are unaware that their constitutional right to privacy is contingent upon the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment’s rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This constitutional right is generally applied to state actions and they are at times limited to protecting only federal, state, and municipal employees. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the influences of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to private sector employment because of the parallel common law standard of “reasonable expectations of privacy” which is the primary piece of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) the federal legislation suggesting employee privacy interest in prohibiting unlawful access and certain disclosures of contents in certain forms of communication...
Words: 1639 - Pages: 7
...reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace. Employees can reasonable expect to have privacy in the workplace when it comes to telephone calls, voicemail, e-mail, text messaging on employer provided cell phone, and their company assigned computer. For example, employers may monitor calls with clients or customers for reasons of quality control purposes; however, under federal case law, when an employer realizes the call is personal, he or she must immediately stop monitoring the call. (Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983). Employees are given some protection from computer and other forms of electronic monitoring under certain circumstances. Union contracts, for example, may limit the employer's right to monitor. Also, public sector employees may have some minimal rights under the United States Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment which safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure (www.privacyrights.org). In cases where there is no specific statute or code that creates a right to privacy, privacy is determined by the “reasonable expectation of privacy”. This is a concept which basically asks if, in the particular circumstances, it was reasonable to expect that certain conduct or communications would be considered private. Determining whether there was a "reasonable expectation of privacy" typically involves a balancing test and many factors must be considered to decide whether the employee had a privacy right (www.allbusiness...
Words: 1336 - Pages: 6
...Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court established that a fourth amendment search is any intrusion into something in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is reasonable that Casey Davidson would have an expectation of privacy regarding his whereabouts because Americans have a right to be secure in their persons and effects. The case of United States v. Jones demonstrates that police must obtain a warrant in order to track a suspect’s car through GPS, and that a vehicle qualifies as...
Words: 618 - Pages: 3
...ISSUES I. Under Massachusetts’ privacy statue, did Chad Thanton disclose private information about Marsha Kensington that was unreasonable and substantial or serious, when Thanton posted three personal pictures of Kensington, which she had never made public? II. Under Massachusetts’ defamation law, did Chad Thanton publish false information about Marsha Kensington to a third-party that could damage her reputation in the community, when Thanton made statements regarding how Kensington makes her grades, she is second in her class, and is unable to get a job offer regardless of her credentials? BRIEF ANSWERS I. Yes. Kensington will be able to prove that her privacy was invaded because there were pictures posted of her by Thanton that was unreasonable and substantial or serious. The pictures of Kensington posted by Thanton had no intervening legitimate interest that would make the postings reasonable. Also the interference was substantial or serious because the interference was frequent, with the pictures being posted on AutoAdmit.com and her expectation of privacy was heightened because posted the pictures under privacy settings. II. Probably. Kensington will probably be able to prove that she was defamed because there were false statements published by Thanton to a third-party about her that could damage her reputation in the community. The comments posted on AutoAdmit.com by Thanton could damage Kensington’s reputation in the legal community because she is unable to get...
Words: 2817 - Pages: 12
