Black Board reponse

Does the 4th amendment protect government employees like it does private sector employees? I believe that answer is “yes,” Justice O’Connor makes a great point thoughout her opinion relative to the words “unreasonable” in the 4th amendment.

She claims that although the 4th amendment is there to essentially protect the citizen ( even if the employer is the government ) from unreasonable search and seizures. I believe Justice Scalia nailed it on the head in his concurrance when he says that the ” Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches by government does not disappear merly because the government has the right to make reasonable intrusions in it’s capacity as employer” (Work Law Page 360) Now Justice Blackman concurs in judgement but dissents in that he thinks that there was no special need for getting a warrent.

In addition, and although I see where he is coming from, I still disagree with him as Jusice Blackman makes an arguement that it should be up to the employee to determine if they want to bring their personal life into the work place. Because by doing so it makes it harder to tell which actions and property are personal and work related. Justice blackman gave an example of an employee using a work phone to make a personal phone call.

I do find this case interesting and ironic as we see and read about former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-lago residence being raided for national archive papers. Some of which were letters written to him by former President Barack Obama and Kim Ju Un ( Business Insider ) .

Now I do understand that the President of the United States is different than a government employee at a hospital. My over arching point in bringing this up is to echo Justice Blackman’s point in that it is hard to tell what is belongs to employee and what belongs to the employer when it is all mixed up as he writes on page 362 in Note 4 of our text. I just couldn’t help but thinkof the current news in front of us today.

The case with former President Trump, relative to these letters, could go down the rabbit hole in the court battles ahead but with obviously a different view point and different constitutional questions. But none-the-less similar. Just my food for thought.

In Justice Connor’s opinion, the case is reversed and remanded. Justice Connor concludes that searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the private property of their employees are subject to the Fourth Amendment restraints.

Justice O Connor goes on to state that an expectation of privacy in a place of work is based upon societal expectations that are deep rooted in the Amendment. However, the operational realities of the workplace may make some public employees’ expectations of privacy unreasonable.

In Justice Blackmunâs dissenting opinion, they agreed that the search was a violation in his Fourth Amendment rights. Ortega had an expectation of privacy in his office. The dissenting opinion was that there was â no special need to neglect obtaining a warrant and fulfilling the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.[

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government but does not guarantee against all searches and seizures that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

I would have to agree with Justice O Connorâ’s opinion as Ortega was on a leave of absence pending an informal investigation and it would not deem unreasonable to search his office for evidence in the case. As the Fourth Amendment states it does not guarantee all searches as unlawful and in this case of a computer he acquired and the sexual harassment allegations, a search was necessary.

The bible says we should mind our own business and work with our hands just as God told us to do, so that we may respect outsiders and not be dependent on anybody per Thessalonians 4:11-12.[5]