Video surveillance of school teachers’ locker rooms was potentially unreasonable

Teachers showed that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy protecting them from video surveillance in their athletic office and locker room area. One was suspected of theft, but videotaping all of them was potentially unreasonable, at least at the motion to dismiss stage. Doe v. Dearborn Pub. Schools, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25514 (E.D. Mich. March 31, 2008):

Addressing the first prong of the Katz test, Plaintiffs have established subjective expectations of privacy in the object of the challenged search. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to privacy in their office and/or locker room.

As to the second prong of the Katz test, Plaintiffs have sufficiently provided evidence that they have an expectation of privacy in their locker room/office and from the students and other staff members to change or to do some office work. The locker room/office contains lockers provided by the school so that Plaintiffs could change their clothes. The locker room/office can only be accessed from the boys’ locker room and is contained within the boys’ locker room. Plaintiffs use the office at least three times a week to change their clothes from street clothes to athletic clothes and to disrobe in order to shower after conducting physical education classes or working out in the school’s fitness room. (Ex. B, Grodzicki Dep.; Ex. C, Hummel Dep.; Ex. D, Helisek Dep.) The office was for the exclusive use of the male physical education teachers. (Ex. E, Rafferty Dep.) Even if the Plaintiffs did not use the office to change their clothes, Plaintiffs still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the office, as noted by the Supreme Court in O’Connor, in light of the fact that the office was a room contained in the boys’ locker room and was for the exclusive use of the male physical education teachers.

Regarding the issue of the reasonableness of the search, “[d]etermining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether the … action was justified at its inception,’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. [1], at 20, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted ‘was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place,’ ibid.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341. Ordinarily, a search of an employee’s office by a supervisor will be “justified at its inception” when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct, or that the search is necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to retrieve a needed file. The search will be permissible in its scope when “the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of … the nature of the [misconduct].” Id. at 342.

Although at its inception, the videotape search may have been justified to determine whether Plaintiff Helisek was stealing, as argued by Defendants, there are genuine issues of fact as to whether the measures adopted were reasonably related to the objectives of the search. There were other teachers who share the office with Plaintiff Helisek who were not suspected in the alleged thefts. Also, the search may have been excessively intrusive since there is testimony submitted that the office was also used by Plaintiffs and referees to change their clothing. Although Defendants claim that no one saw a video live, Mr. Shelton, the Assistant Principal, testified he inadvertently saw an image from Plaintiffs’ office. This statement does not make the search less intrusive since the images were recorded, for at least 30 days. The images could also be copied or burned onto a CD. The reason given for the installation of the camera was to “catch” Plaintiff Helisek in the act of stealing. What then is the purpose of video taping the office if no one is watching the monitor or reviewing the recorded images? Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that they have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable video searches of their shared office.