Office sharing does not defeat a reasonable expectation of privacy

Under O’Connor v. Ortega [and Mancusi v. DeForte, not cited], defendant had standing in an office shared with others in a public employment context. United States v. Torres-Ramos, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89183 (C.D. Cal. October 17, 2008):

As the facts illustrate, Solano possessed keys to both the manager’s office and the security office, and used both offices to the exclusion of all but a small number of other employees. As prior holdings make clear, the fact that these offices may have been shared with a small number of employees and been accessible to superiors does not defeat Solano’s claim of standing under the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the Court concludes that Solano had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records kept in both the manager’s office and the security office.

Warrant for casino information of defendant’s gambling activities was based on probable cause and was subject to the good faith exception. United States v. Hernandez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88984 (D. Minn. October 28, 2008)* (Comment: Unless there has become an expectation of privacy in casino records, why wasn’t this case just decided on that ground?)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.