Employer Conducted Searches

July 22, 2008



I have been working as a government employee in Sacramento, California for around seven years.  My question is whether my supervisors can search my computer, my personal belongings and my workspace without a search warrant?  Can they look into the websites I have been visiting or check the contents of the cabinets in my work station? 




It depends on whether or not the computer, your personal belongings or your cabinets are part of the workplace.  If they are part of the workplace, are related to your work and are under your employer’s control, then your supervisor can search these areas without a search warrant and you do not have any claim of privacy over them.  To know whether the items you mentioned are considered part of the workplace, you have to examine employer customs and practices, company regulations or the accessibility of these by other people where you work.   Did you sign any consent form allowing your employer to conduct random searches of the computer, the cabinets or any personal belongings in your workstation?  Do other employees such as your supervisor have keys to your cabinets and can they access the contents?  If yes, it is possible that these are considered part of the workplace and you do not have any expectation of privacy for these items.   If not, then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and your employers and other law-enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before conducting any searches of that area. 


Thus, your supervisors might or might not, depending on the circumstances, have a right to conduct searches of employee workspace if you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy. This must be determined case-by-case, depending on employer customs and practices, company regulations allowing and warning about random searches or entries, and the general openness or insularity of the workplace.


The United States Supreme Court in the case of O’Connor v. Ortega (480 U.S. 709) held that employers most frequently need to enter the offices and desks of their employees for either for legitimate work-related reasons or to conduct investigation into suspected employee misfeasance. The court stated that, the imposition of a warrant requirement would conflict with “the common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.”


Thus,  government employers may, without warrant, conduct non-investigatory work-related searches and investigatory searches for work-related employee misconduct.  The Court also stated that that public employer searches of government employee workspace for non-investigatory work-related purposes or for investigations of work-related misconduct should be judged by the reasonableness standard.  The reasonableness requirement means that the search must be justified at its inception and must be reasonable in scope.  A search of an employee’s office by a supervisor will be ‘justified at its  inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct, or that the search is necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to retrieve a needed file.  As to the execution of the search, the plurality stated that the measures adopted must reasonably relate to the objectives of the search and not be excessive in light of the nature of the misconduct.


Search of Marital Home

July 22, 2008

My House Is My Castle


Mr. X asks:  I want to know if my wife can give permission to the police to search my house for drugs even if I am there and refuse to give my consent. The police did not have a search warrant to search my house.  But my wife and I have not been on the best terms and on that day, we had a quarrel.  Maybe that is why she gave the police consent to search our house.




Mr. X, your wife cannot allow the police to search your house if you are physically present and refuse the search.  Even if both you and your wife co-own or have equal possession of the house, your wife cannot allow the police to search the house if you do not want them to. They have to get a search warrant unless they have valid reasons to search the house under any exception to the warrant requirement of the U.S. Constitution. 


The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects persons within the United States from “unreasonable searches and seizures” of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” unless the government has a search warrant.  The Constitution also provides that “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


This provision was intended to protect citizens against warrantless searches by law enforcement due to the perceived strength of the government as against the individual.  Although the Supreme Court has enumerated several exceptions to the warrant requirement for conducting searches, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to infringe upon the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, noting that “when the right to privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a general rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or a government enforcement agent” (Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14-15 [1948]).


Against this very clear limitation of the Fourth Amendment, the Court traced the history of third-party consent cases, noting the development of the valid consent exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The United States Supreme Court in the case of Georgia v. Randolph (126 S. Ct. 1515 [2006]) held that to determine the reasonableness of consented searches without warrant, the courts must consider “widely shared social expectations.”  Thus, the current rule is that a co-occupant (such as husband or wife) with common authority over any property, may permit a warrantless search valid as against other absent co-occupants.  If the other co-occupants are not physically present during the search, the co-occupant who is present can validly give consent and such consent binds other absent co-occupants.  However, one co-occupant’s consent to a search may not supersede an express refusal made by a physically present co-occupant.  Thus, a co-occupant cannot permit a warrantless search if another co-occupant who is physically present objects to the search. 


The Court observed that there is no hierarchy in the property rights co-tenants.  Thus, “there is no societal understanding of superior and inferior, a fact reflected in the common understanding of domestic property law, that ‘each cotenant has the right to use and enjoy the entire property as if he or she were the sole owner limited only by the same right in other co-tenants”. The Court also reasoned that because there is no “common understanding that one co-tenant has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another”, all visitors, including the police, are devoid of any claim to reasonableness in entering a home at the request of a co-inhabitant in the face of another protesting co-inhabitant.

Example article for H1 and student visas

February 14, 2008

Here I will be talking about H-1 and student visas.