Cops and privacy in the workplace

[masameet]

What effect is Quon et al. v. Arch Wireless having on you guys at work?

And how many, if any, forms have you signed regarding waiving your right to privacy as a cop?

[Unit74]

Since we are not issued communications devices, I would have to say no effect on us.

However, if we were, I don't see that anything communicated on the device would be held to a level of expectation of privacy. It is a department piece of equipment no different than an MDC/MDT and they have complete control over it's use.

Where my red flags would have been waiving is if/when personal devices are allowed to be queried by the courts approval. This would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment to me. What becomes gray area is when employees are given a cell phone stipend but that is a suppliment and not a full payment of a bill, i.e. on-call such as Captains, Lieutenants, major incident responders, etc.

We have many officers who use personal cells, but do receive a stipend due to this on-call status. The day the courts hold this to a 4th Amendment waiver I will refuse the stipend all together.

[Terminal Velocity]

Since we are not issued communications devices, I would have to say no effect on us.

However, if we were, I don't see that anything communicated on the device would be held to a level of expectation of privacy. It is a department piece of equipment no different than an MDC/MDT and they have complete control over it's use.

Where my red flags would have been waiving is if/when personal devices are allowed to be queried by the courts approval. This would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment to me. What becomes gray area is when employees are given a cell phone stipend but that is a suppliment and not a full payment of a bill, i.e. on-call such as Captains, Lieutenants, major incident responders, etc.

We have many officers who use personal cells, but do receive a stipend due to this on-call status. The day the courts hold this to a 4th Amendment waiver I will refuse the stipend all together.

Check out State v. Ortiz, Case no. 2009-NMCA-092 in recent case law the court made the decision that Defendants are entitled to the personal cell phone records of police if used while the Officer is on duty, in uniform, in a marked patrol vehicle and during the stop, investigation and arrest of a criminal defendant.

[masameet]

Wow. In New Mexico v. Ortiz the state supreme court pretty much states that New Mexico cops have no privacy whatsoever while on the job.

[ilbob]

Check out State v. Ortiz, Case no. 2009-NMCA-092 in recent case law the court made the decision that Defendants are entitled to the personal cell phone records of police if used while the Officer is on duty, in uniform, in a marked patrol vehicle and during the stop, investigation and arrest of a criminal defendant.

Which seems eminently reasonable. I wonder how a court managed to actually come to a reasonable decision these days.

[Terminal Velocity]

Yep and since it's a supreme court ruling it effects us all because it can be argued case law in the court room

[masameet]

These two cases -- Quon and Ortiz -- sure seem in opposition.

A California court says cops have a right to privacy even when using agency property for personal use during work hours and a New Mexico court says cops have no privacy if, at the time of a stop, they have a working personal cell phone on them (and may not even have been using said personal cell phone at the time of the stop).

[bshnt2015]

For those who don't know.

Quon et al. v. Arch

In this decision from the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff was a police officer in Ontario California. He used a text messaging device provided by the city. The city had an e-mail and internet policy stating that there was no expectation of privacy on city-owned systems and that information on them was city property, but a superior had previously verbally stated that messaged would not be reviewed as long as long as overage charges were paid by the employee using the device. The city decided to investigate excess usage of the devices, and examined messages on, among others, the plaintiff’s device. Plaintiff sued, alleging a violation of the Stored Communications Act and the 4th amendment. The 9th Circuit concluded that because of the verbal statements by the superior, the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore the city could have and should have used a less intrusive means of investigating excess usage than reading the messages.

This case is significant for a couple of reasons: most businesses have a computer and e-mail policy similar to the one at issue, and the general rule is that a policy of this sort is reasonable and enforceable. The case calls into question the viability of any such policy in the 9th Circuit, and may force multi-state employers into having two policies: one for the 9th Circuit states,and one for the rest of the country. Further, it encourages draconian enforcement of any such policy, at least in the 9th Circuit, since any lenient enforcement or lack of enforcement may give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and in effect invalidate the policy.

Permalink: http://www.abanet.org/techshow/blog/090408.shtml

[yzErnie]

What happened to my reply to this thread????????????????

It was neither rude or speaking out of line.

[tyrist]

LEA have violated Officers constitutional rights before and I am sure they will do it again.