The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that for corporate executives to have a standing to challenge a search of workplace areas beyond their own internal office, they must generally show some personal connection to the places searched and the materials seized.
For a Limited Time receive a
FREE HR Report "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management." This comprehensive special report will give you the information you need to know about these current HR challenges and how to most effectively manage them in your workplace.
Download NowThe Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The key to whether an individual has standing to challenge a search is whether he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. An executive, for example, could have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her own office.
In the case before the court, two owners of a company challenged the federal government's search and seizure of materials during its investigation of whether they and the company they owned had engaged in Medicare and tax fraud. The executives argued that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy on all of the business's premises that the police searched.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho , Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington--disagreed. The court cited a three-part test for determining whether executives have a standing under the Fourth Amendment.
“Except in the case of a small, family-run business over which an individual exercises daily management and control, an individual challenging a search of workplace areas beyond his own internal office must generally show some personal connection to the places searched and the materials seized,” the court wrote. “We will specifically determine the strength of such personal connection with reference to the following factors:
- Whether the item seized is personal property or otherwise kept in a private place separate from other work-related material;
- Whether the defendant had custody or immediate control of the item when officers seized it; and
- Whether the defendant took precautions on his own behalf to secure the place searched or things seized from any interference without his authorization. Absent such a personal connection or exclusive use, a defendant cannot establish standing for Fourth Amendment purposes to challenge the search of a workplace beyond his internal office.”
Link