O'Connor v. Ortega

The Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the lower courts. In the course of the review they examined three points in particular. First, they addressed the definition of privacy in the workplace. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, concluded that the search and seizure of private property by government employers and officials is subject to the restraints of the Fourth Amendment. However, due to the great variety of work environments, particularly in the public sector, an employee's expectation of privacy may be unreasonable when the intrusion into the office is by a supervisor rather than a law enforcement official in the course of conducting normal business functions. Given this variety of work environments, this question of a reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on an individual basis. The allocation of private versus shared office space, policies regarding the placement of personal objects in an office, and the practice of allowing personal activities on company grounds, all needed to be weighed in the analysis of reasonable expectations of privacy.

The justices also considered the allowable standards for a search when a reasonable expectation of privacy existed. It was the justices opinion that the standard " . . . requires balancing the employee's legitimate expectation of privacy against the government's need for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of the workplace." Because it would be difficult to apply the standard of `probable cause' as applied by the Fourth Amendment, cases for breaching the privacy of an employee's workplace must be judged by the standard of `reasonableness.' It was acceptable and reasonable for Dennis O'Connor and the other hospital officials to enter Ortega's office on the grounds that they were attempting to inventory state property. Ortega was on administrative leave pending possible termination; officials needed to ascertain which property was rightfully owned by the state and to ensure the efficient running of the department while Ortega was absent.

The majority justices also determined that Ortega had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his desk and file cabinets. They cited several instances in support of this expectation. First, Ortega did not share his office with any other employees; it was a personal work area. He had occupied the same office for the 17 years of his employment and kept personal items there. Ortega's work-related files were kept outside his office. Finally, the hospital had no established policy which discouraged or prohibited employees from storing personal papers and other items in their desks or file cabinets.

Justice O'Connor, on behalf of the majority, raised the question of whether the summary judgment of the district court was inappropriate. Was the search reasonable under the circumstances? The two lower courts could not agree upon the intent of the search of Ortega's office. The district court held that the search was reasonable in order to secure state property. The court of appeals held that the search was in violation of Ortega's right to privacy on the grounds that he was entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office. The decision of the court of appeals was reversed and returned to the lower courts for "the justification for the search and seizure, and [evaluation of] the reasonableness of both the inception of the search and its scope."