Case Brief 7
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Saint Leo University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
550
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by charainem
1
Case Brief 7
Title and Citation:
O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987)
Type of Action:
SCOTUS review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, violation of the
Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and expectation of privacy of
a public employee.
Facts:
Dr. Magno Ortega was a physician and psychiatrist employed by Napa State Hospital and
was accused of sexual harassment of female employees and inappropriate disciplinary action
against a resident. Hospital officials were concerned about possible misconduct and placed the
doctor on paid administrative leave. They later investigated and searched the doctor's office
several times and seized personal items and items belonging to the state. No formal property
inventory was taken in the office, but all the papers not seized were stored for the doctor to
retrieve. After the investigation, his employment was terminated. Dr. Ortega sued the officials in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the search of
his office violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Contentions of the Parties:
Ortega:
Argues that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was
violated when hospital officials searched his office several times and seized items from his desk
and file cabinet because he had a
reasonable
expectation of privacy. He also argues that the
purpose of the search was to secure evidence for use against him in administrative disciplinary
proceedings.
O’Connor:
Argues Ortega’s Fourth Amendment right was not violated due to a hospital policy
of conducting a routine inventory of state property in the office of a "terminated employee".
O’Connor
also argued there was a need to secure state property in the office.
Issue:
Was the Doctor's Fourth Amendment right of an "expectation of privacy" violated when
hospital officials searched his office several times?
Decision:
No, SCOTUS ruled that the search did not violate Dr. Ortega’s Fourth Amendment
rights of an expectation of privacy when his work office was searched.
2
Rational:
SCOTUS held that the realities of the workplace made some expectations of privacy
among public employees unreasonable when the intrusion was by a supervisor rather than a law
enforcement official. In cases where searches were related to work, the Court determined that
they were simply part of the regular business operations and, therefore, requiring a warrant
would significantly disrupt the normal functioning of the agency. They also concluded that a
standard of "reasonableness" was appropriate for work-related intrusions by public employers.
Rule of Law:
Public employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being intruded
by law enforcement. Work-related searches by a supervisor that meet the standard of
"reasonableness" are not considered to be a violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help