Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

The Supreme Court's decision in Riley established an important privacy interest. This case will likely influence court decisions in civil cases involving discovery issues or investigations where information is sought from a personal smartphone. Williams v. Superior Court 400 Court permitted discovery of names and address of other employees who may have an interest in a class action to recover wages on their behalf over assertion of privacy objections raised by the employer. Court explained that not ever assertion of a privacy interest under the California Constitution must be overcome by a compelling interest. A compelling interest is only required for “an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy.” However, “when lesser interests are at stake,” a “more nuanced framework” applies, “with the strength of the countervailing interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information varying according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures.” 401

2. P UBLIC S AFETY O FFICERS Under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, the agency may not search an officer’s locker or personal storage space except in the officer’s presence, or with his or her consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained, or where he or she has been notified in advance that a search will be conducted. 402 However, an office or locker search of space under the employer’s control may still violate the constitutional restriction on unreasonable search or seizures if the employee has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” As with other employees, if this is the kind of area that is subject to searches on a normal basis, then the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy may be diminished. The department may not coerce an administrative search of locations other than those under departmental control. If the department wishes to avoid the possible exclusion of evidence when searching locations such as an officer’s vehicle or home, as well as a possible lawsuit for violation of civil rights, it must obtain the officer’s consent or a valid search warrant. If an officer is forced to comply with an order to permit a search to avoid a possible charge of insubordination, the officer may have grounds for the exclusion of the evidence obtained as well as a civil lawsuit. For example, a federal court has held that a police officer is not required to open his home whenever reasonable suspicion exists that evidence may be found. Under such circumstances, an administrative warrant is improper and constitutionally infirm. 403

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 130