Gelfling nailed it, more or less. Although the Constitution applies to all things, the Supreme Court has found that, in a situation as described above, a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy to deny a search and seizure.
The phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" is key, to any 4th Amendment analysis. Like it or not, it has been determined that a person at the work place has no reasonable expectation of privacy b/c he/she performs within an observable environment. That is why a company is completely entitled to see your computer activity, internet activity, check phone numbers called, etc.
Examples of situations discussed by the Supreme Court:
1) U.S. v. Katz (a pivotal 4th Amendment case): person within a phone booth making a phone call was found to have a reasonable expectation of privacy and, hence, a wiretap on that phone to relay the content of his call was deemed unconstitutional.
2) Planting a location tracking "beeper" in a car without a person's knowing: deemed Constitutional, as a person driving a car is driving in "public" places, and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
3) "Pen registers" (the tracking of phone numbers (and with the right warrant, content of those calls) dialled, by getting a register of all calls from the phone company): deemed Constitutional, due to the fact that a person dials OUT and submits information to privately owned companies and mediums of communication (ie the lines).
4) Thermal imaging of houses: Deemed unconstitutional without a search warrant, as it detects details of the goings on inside a house, without actually being inside the house to see. Kyllo v. US (decided this summer) raises the possibility that only technology that is not reasonably accessible by the general public would be limited to such an analysis.
Remember,the focus is on "reasonable expectation of privacy." The question to ask is: "Should you believe that what you do in the workplace is privately known only to yourself?" The answer to that question, says the Supreme Court, is no.
Sorry, but those searches are legitimate and legal. You can deny the search, but to do so, you won't have a legal leg to stand on - ESPECIALLY in light of heightened national security concerns from 9/11, coupled with you working at NIH (or any gov't entity, for that matter).
And yes, I am a lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
Gelfling nailed it, more or less. Although the Constitution applies to all things, the Supreme Court has found that, in a situation as described above, a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy to deny a search and seizure. The phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" is key, to any 4th Amendment analysis. Like it or not, it has been determined that a person at the work place has no reasonable expectation of privacy b/c he/she performs within an observable environment. That is why a company is completely entitled to see your computer activity, internet activity, check phone numbers called, etc. Examples of situations discussed by the Supreme Court: 1) U.S. v. Katz (a pivotal 4th Amendment case): person within a phone booth making a phone call was found to have a reasonable expectation of privacy and, hence, a wiretap on that phone to relay the content of his call was deemed unconstitutional. 2) Planting a location tracking "beeper" in a car without a person's knowing: deemed Constitutional, as a person driving a car is driving in "public" places, and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy. 3) "Pen registers" (the tracking of phone numbers (and with the right warrant, content of those calls) dialled, by getting a register of all calls from the phone company): deemed Constitutional, due to the fact that a person dials OUT and submits information to privately owned companies and mediums of communication (ie the lines). 4) Thermal imaging of houses: Deemed unconstitutional without a search warrant, as it detects details of the goings on inside a house, without actually being inside the house to see. Kyllo v. US (decided this summer) raises the possibility that only technology that is not reasonably accessible by the general public would be limited to such an analysis. Remember,the focus is on "reasonable expectation of privacy." The question to ask is: "Should you believe that what you do in the workplace is privately known only to yourself?" The answer to that question, says the Supreme Court, is no. Sorry, but those searches are legitimate and legal. You can deny the search, but to do so, you won't have a legal leg to stand on - ESPECIALLY in light of heightened national security concerns from 9/11, coupled with you working at NIH (or any gov't entity, for that matter). And yes, I am a lawyer.