A New Jersey employer searched his workplace computers to discover that an employee had stolen thousands of dollars from the company. The employee claimed that the search was unjustified because it violated his right to privacy.

What happened. “M.A.” (as he was referred to in court records) went to work for Certified Data Products (CDP) as a temporary bookkeeper on September 1997. CDP is a company in Hillsborough that manufactures adhesive labels. When M.A. started work, the company owner, Joseph Braun, told him that all computers in the office were company property.

In January 1998, M.A. became CDP’s full-time bookkeeper, handling operational matters, employee supervision, and some sales. He also became the office computer expert. M.A. had a private office with a locking door, but rarely closed it and never locked it. Braun had a key to this door.

M.A. owned his own business, Dynamic Data Solutions (DDS), through which he sold used computers. DDS sold 10 computers to CDP. M.A. installed them, and set up a network system. All CDP employees used the same password to log in. Braun and M.A. were the network’s administrators; only they could access CDP’s financial records. Unbeknownst to Braun, however, M.A. had also set up a separate password on the computers and used them to store his own personal information.

In 2002, M.A. called CDP’s payroll company and increased his salary from $40,000 to $125,000 per year. Braun discovered this and confronted M.A., who admitted stealing $8,000 from CDP. Braun fired M.A. and barred him from the office. Braun then discovered that M.A. had been regularly stealing from him. For example, in 2001, CDP purchased a used laptop from DDS for $500. M.A. had actually used Braun’s corporate credit card to purchase this laptop in 1999, for over $3,000. Braun found other examples of theft that added up to at least $500,000. He contacted the police, who searched the laptop and other computers and discovered that M.A. had stolen over $655,000 from CDP.

The state brought criminal charges against M.A. M.A. asked the court to suppress the evidence found on the computers, claiming that they were M.A.’s personal property and that the information on them was private. The court found that Braun was actually the owner of the computers and recommended a 7-year term of imprisonment for M.A. M.A. appealed.

What the court said. M.A. argued that he had a right to expect the personal information he had stored on the computers to remain private because he kept them in a private office and had his own private password. The court disagreed. Courts consistently find that employees have no reason to expect privacy on workplace computers. Braun owned the computers and kept them in CDP’s office. The court further noted that the laptop contained business software used for CDP’s business, Braun had equal access to all the computers, and M.A. did not lock his office. In addition, M.A.’s expectation of privacy for information hidden behind his personal password was unreasonable because he wanted privacy mainly so that he could commit crimes. The court upheld M.A.’s sentence. State v. M.A., Superior Court of New Jersey, No. A-4922-06T4 (8/29/08).

Point to remember: Workplace computers and everything on them almost always belong to the employer. Employees may NOT assume that the contents of their workplace computer are private.