With him on the briefs were C. Phillip Miller and Richard F. Good. See also Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319, 442 U. S. 329 (1979) (the opening of a retail store to the public does not mean that "it consents to wholesale searches and seizures that do not conform to Fourth Amendment guarantees"). A Boulder, Colorado, police officer arrested respondent for driving his van while under the influence of alcohol. under all the circumstances. [479 Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987). The policies behind the warrant requirement, and the related concept of probable cause, are not implicated in an inventory search, which serves the strong governmental interests in protecting an owner's property while it is in police custody, insuring against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and guarding the police from danger. See United States v. United States District Court. U.S. 234, 235 Moreover, I would go along with the plurality's observation that, in certain situations, the "operational realities" of the workplace may remove some expectation of privacy on the part of the employee. Pennsylvania v. Labron, 527 U.S. 465 (1996). U.S. 753
Although Lafayette also involved the property justifications relied on in Opperman, I do not believe it can fairly be read to expand the scope of inventory searches where the pressing security concerns of the station house are absent. 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 369. for police officers to open closed containers in an inventory search only if they are following standard police procedures that mandate the opening of such containers in every impounded vehicle. Get Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. In the procedural posture of this case, we do not attempt to determine whether the search of Dr. Ortega's office and the seizure of his personal belongings satisfy the standard of reasonableness we have articulated in this case. Tr. Id.

Tr. U.S., at 378 The case turns, therefore, on whether the Fourth Amendment was violated -- i.e., whether the governmental intrusion was reasonable.
Cancel anytime. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 389 U. S. 351 (1967) ("What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not s subject of Fourth Amendment protection").

A similar analysis is appropriate here. Indeed, application of these supposedly standardized "criteria" upon which the Court so heavily relies would have yielded a different result in this case. In the case of searches conducted by a public employer, we must balance the invasion of the employees' legitimate expectations of privacy. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. Even if the search in this case did constitute a legitimate inventory, it would nonetheless be unreasonable under this analysis. 442 "3. Under the standard of reasonableness articulated in this case, however, the absence of a Hospital policy did not necessarily make the search unlawful. Footnote 8 U.S. 367, 372] . U.S. 364, 382 See 469 U.S. at 469 U. S. 353 ("The time required for a teacher to ask the questions or make the observations that are necessary to turn reasonable grounds into probable cause is time during which the teacher, and other students, are diverted from the essential task of education"). These items were later used in a proceeding before a hearing officer of the California State Personnel Board to impeach the credibility of the former resident, who testified on Dr. Ortega's behalf. See ante, at 373. Id., at 93-94 (emphasis added). See also Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (1967); United States v. Harris, 390 U.S. 234 (1968). By ignoring the specific facts of this case, and by announcing in the abstract a standard as to the reasonableness of an employer's workplace searches, the plurality undermines not only the Fourth Amendment rights of public employees but also any further analysis of the constitutionality of public employer searches. An office is seldom a private enclave free from entry by supervisors, other employees, and business and personal invitees. The underlying rationale for allowing an inventory exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant rule is that police officers are not vested with discretion to determine the scope of the inventory search. The appropriate standard for a workplace search does not necessarily apply to a piece of closed personal luggage, a handbag, or a briefcase that happens to be within the employer's business address. [Footnote 12] It is certainly true, as the plurality observes, that a public employer has an interest in eliminating incompetence and work-related misconduct in order to enable the government agency to accomplish its tasks in an efficient manner. See id., at 418-419. The backpack contained a nylon bag with closed metal canisters.

] In arguing that the Boulder Police Department procedures set forth no standardized criteria guiding an officer's decision to impound a vehicle, the dissent selectively quotes from the police directive concerning the care and security of vehicles taken into police custody. To be sure, the public employer's ownership of the premises is relevant in determining an employee's expectation of privacy, for often it is the main reason for the routine visits into an employee's office. Finally, the officer can do what was done in

Because the parties in this case have alleged that the search was either a noninvestigatory work-related intrusion or an investigatory search for evidence of suspected work-related employee misfeasance, we undertake to determine the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness only for these two types of employer intrusions, and leave for another day inquiry into other circumstances. The officer testified that he had found such items in vehicles. Officer Reichenbach's inventory in this case would not have protected the police against claims lodged by respondent, false or otherwise. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. . " [Footnote 15] Accordingly, I believe that the Court should examine closely the practical realities of a particular situation and the interests implicated there before replacing the traditional warrant and probable cause requirements with some other standard of reasonableness derived from a balancing test. [479 While he was on administrative leave pending investigation of the charges, hospital officials, allegedly in order to inventory and secure state property, searched his office and seized personal items from his desk and file cabinets that were used in administrative proceedings resulting in his discharge. The plurality reasons that a government agency could not conduct its work in an efficient manner if an employer needed a warrant for every routine entry into an employee's office in search of a file or correspondence, or for every investigation of suspected employee misconduct. (1968); Cady v. Dombrowski, Thus, no formal inventory of the property in the office was ever made. Although motor homes serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence readily mobile.7FootnoteCalifornia v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 (1985) (leaving open the question of whether the automobile exception also applies to a mobile home being used as a residence and not readily mobile). The court observed that the standard procedures for impounding vehicles mandated a "detailed inventory involving the opening of containers and the listing of [their] contents." See New Jersey v. The Fourth Amendment demands no less. . In Lafayette, we upheld a station-house inventory search of an arrestee's shoulder bag. Within the workplace context, this Court has recognized that employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police. 428