Cunningham v. NYS Dept. of Labor

7/28/2019 Cunningham v. NYS Dept. of Labor

1/19

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 123I n t he Mat t er of Mi chael A.Cunni ngham,

Appel l ant ,v.

New Yor k St at e Depar t ment ofLabor ,

Respondent .

Cor ey L. St ought on, f or appel l ant .Kat e H. Nepveu, f or r espondent .New Yor k St at e Uni t ed Teachers, ami cus cur i ae.

SMI TH, J . :

The St at e of New Yor k, suspect i ng t hat one of i t s

empl oyees was submi t t i ng f al se t i me r eport s, at t ached a gl obal

posi t i oni ng syst em ( GPS) devi ce t o t he empl oyee' s car . Under

Peopl e v Weaver ( 12 NY3d 433 [2009] ) and Uni t ed Stat es v J ones

( 132 S Ct 945 [ 2012] ) , t he St at e' s act i on was a sear ch wi t hi n t he

- 1 -


2/19

- 2 - No. 123

meani ng of t he St at e and Feder al Const i t ut i ons. We hol d t hat t he

sear ch di d not r equi r e a war r ant , but t hat on t he f act s of t hi s

case i t was unr easonabl e.

I

Pet i t i oner became a St at e empl oyee i n 1980, and i n 1989

was appoi nt ed as Di r ect or of St af f and Or gani zat i onal Devel opment

of t he St at e Depar t ment of Labor . I n 2008, t he Depar t ment began

an i nvest i gat i on r el at i ng t o pet i t i oner ' s al l eged unaut hor i zed

absences f r om dut y and t he f al si f i cat i on of r ecor ds t o conceal

t hose absences. That i nvest i gat i on l ed t o a di sci pl i nar y

pr oceedi ng t hat r esul t ed i n a t wo- mont h suspensi on; i t al so l ed

t o a second i nvest i gat i on, because, af t er pet i t i oner el uded an

i nvest i gator who was f ol l owi ng hi s car , t he Depar t ment r ef er r ed

pet i t i oner ' s conduct t o t he Of f i ce of t he St at e I nspect or

Gener al . The I nspect or Gener al ' s i nvest i gat i on r esul t ed i n a

second di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ng, t he one now bef or e us.

As f ar as t he r ecor d shows, t he f i r st st ep i n t he

I nspect or Gener al ' s i nvest i gat i on was t o at t ach a GPS devi ce t o

pet i t i oner ' s car , wi t hout pet i t i oner ' s knowl edge, whi l e t he car

was par ked i n a l ot near t he Depar t ment of Labor of f i ces. Thi s

devi ce and t wo l at er r epl acement s r ecor ded al l of t he car ' s

movement s f or a mont h, i ncl udi ng eveni ngs, weekends and sever al

days when pet i t i oner was on vacat i on i n Massachuset t s. Later ,

t he I nspect or Gener al pur sued ot her avenues of i nvest i gat i on:

sur vei l l ance of an apar t ment bui l di ng pet i t i oner was suspect ed of

- 2 -


3/19

- 3 - No. 123

vi si t i ng dur i ng wor ki ng hour s, subpoenas f or E- ZPass r ecor ds and

i nt er vi ews of pet i t i oner and hi s secret ar y.

Af t er r ecei vi ng t he I nspect or Gener al ' s r epor t , t he

Depart ment br ought new charges agai nst pet i t i oner , of whi ch 11

wer e sust ai ned by a Hear i ng Of f i cer . Four of t hose 11 charges

were dependent on evi dence obt ai ned f r om t he GPS devi ce. As t o

t hr ee charges, t he GPS i nf or mat i on showed t hat pet i t i oner ' s t i mes

of ar r i val at and depar t ur e f r om hi s of f i ce wer e i nconsi st ent

wi t h the number of hour s he cl ai med, on t i me recor ds he

submi t t ed, t o have worked. A f our t h char ge was based on

pet i t i oner ' s appr oval of t i me recor ds showi ng hi s secret ar y was

worki ng dur i ng hours when t he GPS i nf ormat i on showed t hat he was

vi si t i ng her home. Four ot her char ges were suppor t ed by GPS

evi dence and ot her evi dence as wel l ; t hey rel at ed to t he t i me

when pet i t i oner cl ai med that he and hi s secr et ary r et ur ned home

f r om a busi ness t r i p t o Syracuse. Bot h GPS i nf or mat i on and E-

ZPass r ecor ds showed t hey had r etur ned i n t he mi ddl e of t he

workday, not at t he end of i t as document s submi t t ed or appr oved

by pet i t i oner had sai d. The GPS i nf or mat i on was i r r el evant t o

t he r emai ni ng t hr ee sust ai ned charges.

The Commi ssi oner of Labor af f i r med t he Hear i ng

Of f i cer ' s det er mi nat i on, and t er mi nat ed pet i t i oner ' s empl oyment .

Pet i t i oner br ought t hi s ar t i cl e 78 pr oceedi ng t o chal l enge t hat

r ul i ng. On t r ansf er f r om Supr eme Cour t , t he Appel l at e Di vi si on,

wi t h t wo J ust i ces di ssent i ng, conf i r med t he Commi ssi oner ' s

- 3 -


4/19

- 4 - No. 123

det er mi nat i on and di smi ssed t he pet i t i on ( Mat t er of Cunni ngham v

New York St at e Dept . of Labor , 89 AD3d 1347 [ 3d Dept 2011] ) .

Pet i t i oner appeal s as of r i ght , pur suant t o CPLR 5601 ( a) and

5601 ( b) ( 1) , and we now r ever se t he Appel l at e Di vi si on' s

j udgment .

II

We deci ded i n Weaver , and the Supreme Cour t deci ded i n

J ones, t hat t he at t achment by l aw enf or cement of f i cer s of a GPS

devi ce t o t he aut omobi l e of a cr i mi nal suspect , and t he use of

t hat devi ce t o t r ack the suspect ' s movement s, was a sear ch

subj ect t o const i t ut i onal l i mi t at i ons. Weaver and J ones

est abl i sh t hat what happened i n t hi s case was a sear ch al so,

wi t hi n t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e I , 12 of t he New Yor k

Const i t ut i on and the Four t h Amendment ; t he St at e does not cont end

other wi se. But nei t her Weaver nor J ones pr esent ed t he quest i on

of when, i f ever , a GPS sear ch i s per mi ssi bl e i n t he absence of a

sear ch war r ant ( see Weaver , 12 NY3d at 444- 445 [ t he sear ch "comes

wi t hi n no except i on t o the war r ant r equi r ement , and t he Peopl e do

not cont end ot her wi se"] ; J ones, 132 S Ct at 954 [ hol di ng t he

argument t hat t he search wi t hout a warr ant was " r easonabl e - - and

t hus l awf ul " t o be f or f ei t ed] ) . Her e, t he St at e ar gues, and we

agr ee, t hat t hi s sear ch i s wi t hi n t he "wor kpl ace" except i on t o

t he war r ant r equi r ement r ecogni zed i n O' Connor v Or t ega ( 480 US

709 [ 1987] ) and Mat t er of Car uso v War d (72 NY2d 432 [ 1988] ) .

O' Connor i nvol ved the war r ant l ess sear ch by a publ i c

- 4 -


5/19

- 5 - No. 123

empl oyer of t he of f i ce of an empl oyee suspect ed of mi sconduct .

The Supreme Cour t uphel d t he search. The pl ural i t y opi ni on

expl ai ned:

" I n our vi ew, r equi r i ng an empl oyer t o obt ai na war r ant whenever t he empl oyer wi shed t oent er an empl oyee' s of f i ce, desk, or f i l ecabi net s f or a work- r el at ed pur pose woul dser i ousl y di sr upt t he r out i ne conduct ofbusi ness and woul d be undul y burdensome.I mposi ng unwi el dy war r ant pr ocedur es i n suchcases upon supervi sor s, who woul d ot her wi sehave no r eason t o be f ami l i ar wi t h suchpr ocedur es, i s s i mpl y unr easonabl e"

( 480 US at 722; see al so i d. at 732 [ Scal i a, J . , concur r i ng]

[ war r ant l ess sear ches "t o i nvest i gat e vi ol at i ons of wor kpl ace

r ul es" do not vi ol at e t he Four t h Amendment ] ) . I n Caruso, we made

cl ear t hat we woul d f ol l ow O' Connor i n deci di ng t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of sear ches conduct ed by publ i c empl oyer s,

whet her f or "noni nvest i gat or y, wor k- r el at ed pur poses" or f or

" i nvest i gat i ons of wor k- r el at ed mi sconduct , " under t he New Yor k

as wel l as t he Feder al Const i t ut i on ( 72 NY2d at 437; i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Caruso appl i ed O' Connor t o uphol d

r andom ur i nal ysi s t est i ng of cer t ai n pol i ce of f i cer s. See al so

Mat t er of Seel i g v Koehl er ( 76 NY2d 87 [ 1990] [ uphol di ng

ur i nal ysi s t est i ng of uni f or med cor r ect i on of f i cer s] ; Mat t er of

Del araba v Nassau County Pol i ce Dept . ( 83 NY2d 367 [ 1994]

[ uphol di ng ur i nal ysi s t est i ng of pol i ce of f i cer s] ) .

Pet i t i oner her e does not chal l enge t he exi st ence of a

workpl ace except i on t o t he war r ant r equi r ement , but argues t hat

i t i s i nappl i cabl e because t he obj ect of t he sear ch i n t hi s case

- 5 -


6/19

- 6 - No. 123

was pet i t i oner ' s per sonal car . Pet i t i oner asks us t o conf i ne t he

except i on t o "t he wor kpl ace i t sel f , or . . . wor kpl ace- i ssued

pr oper t y t hat can be seen as an ext ensi on of t he workpl ace"

( Br i ef of Pet i t i oner - Appel l ant at 13) . We r ej ect t he suggest i on,

at l east i nsof ar as i t woul d r equi r e a publ i c empl oyer t o get a

war r ant f or a sear ch desi gned t o f i nd out t he l ocat i on of t he

aut omobi l e an empl oyee i s usi ng when t hat empl oyee i s, or cl ai ms

t o be, worki ng f or t he empl oyer .

The O' Connor pl ural i t y obser ved t hat such i t ems as a

per sonal photogr aph on an empl oyee' s desk, or a per sonal l et t er

post ed on an empl oyee bul l et i n boar d, are part of t he workpl ace

( 480 US at 716) . The l ocat i on of a per sonal car used by t he

empl oyee dur i ng worki ng hour s does not seem t o us more pr i vat e.

Pet i t i oner was r equi r ed t o r epor t hi s ar r i val and depar t ur e t i mes

t o hi s empl oyer ; t hi s sur el y di mi ni shed any expect at i on he mi ght

have had t hat t he l ocat i on of hi s car dur i ng t he hour s he cl ai med

t o be at work was no one' s concer n but hi s. We ar e unper suaded

by t he suggest i on i n t he concur r i ng opi ni on t hat , on our

r easoni ng, a GPS devi ce coul d, wi t hout a war r ant , be at t ached t o

an empl oyee' s shoe or pur se ( concur r i ng op at 7) . Peopl e have a

gr eat er expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he l ocat i on of t hei r bodi es,

and t he cl othi ng and accessor i es t hat accompany t hei r bodi es,

t han i n t he l ocat i on of t hei r car s.

The r easons t hat l ed t he O' Connor Cour t t o di spense

wi t h t he war r ant r equi r ement - - t he ser i ous di sr upt i on t hat such

- 6 -


7/19

- 7 - No. 123

a r equi r ement woul d ent ai l , and t he bur den i t woul d i mpose on

super vi sors who "ar e har dl y i n t he busi ness of i nvest i gat i ng t he

vi ol at i on of cr i mi nal l aws" ( 480 US at 722 [ pl ur al i t y op] ; see

al so i d. at 732 [ Scal i a, J . , concur r i ng] ) - - appl y no l ess to an

i nvest i gat i on of t he ki nd at i ssue her e t hen t o t he

i nvest i gat i ons i n O' Connor and i n Ci t y of Ont ar i o v Quon ( 130 S

Ct 2619 [ 2010] ) , whi ch i nvol ved a scr ut i ny of t ext messages on an

empl oyer - i ssued pager . We t hus concl ude t hat when an empl oyee

chooses t o use hi s car dur i ng t he busi ness day, GPS t r acki ng of

t he car may be consi der ed a workpl ace sear ch.

The I nspect or Gener al di d not vi ol at e t he St at e or

Feder al Const i t ut i on by f ai l i ng t o seek a war r ant bef or e

at t achi ng a GPS devi ce t o pet i t i oner ' s car .

III

Whi l e t he sear ch di d not r equi r e a war r ant , i t di d not

compl y wi t h ei t her t he St at e or Feder al Const i t ut i on unl ess i t

was a r easonabl e sear ch. We concl ude t hat t he St ate has f ai l ed

t o demonst r ate that t hi s search was r easonabl e.

The O' Connor pl ural i t y, quot i ng f r om Ter r y v Ohi o ( 392

US 1, 20 [ 1968] and New J ersey v T. L. O. ( 469 US 325, 341- 342

[ 1985] ) , summar i zed t he appr oach of cour t s t o t he quest i on of

r easonabl eness i n t hi s way:

"Det er mi ni ng t he r easonabl eness of any sear chi nvol ves a t wof ol d i nqui r y: f i r st , one mustconsi der whet her t he act i on was j ust i f i ed ati t s i ncept i on; second, one must det er mi newhether t he sear ch as act ual l y conduct ed wasr easonabl y rel at ed i n scope to t he

- 7 -


8/19

- 8 - No. 123

ci r cumst ances whi ch j ust i f i ed thei nt er f er ence i n t he f i r st pl ace . . . . Thesear ch wi l l be per mi ssi bl e i n i t s scope whent he measur es adopt ed are r easonabl y rel at ed

t o the obj ect i ves of t he sear ch and notexcessi vel y i nt r usi ve i n l i ght of t he nat ur eof t he mi sconduct "

( 480 US at 726; ci t at i ons, i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks, el l i psi s and

br acket i ng omi t t ed) .

Under O' Connor , a workpl ace sear ch based on a

r easonabl e suspi ci on of empl oyee mi sconduct i s " j ust i f i ed at i t s

i ncept i on" ( 480 US at 726 [ pl ur al i t y opi ni on] ; i d. at 732

[ Scal i a, J . , concur r i ng] ) . The sear ch i n t hi s case cl ear l y meet s

t hat t est . Pet i t i oner ' s empl oyer had ampl e gr ounds t o suspect

hi m of submi t t i ng f al se t i me r ecor ds.

We cannot f i nd, however , t hat t hi s sear ch was

r easonabl e i n i t s scope. I t was, i n t he wor ds of t he T. L. O.

Cour t quot ed i n O' Connor , "excessi vel y i nt r usi ve. " I t exami ned

much act i vi t y wi t h whi ch t he St at e had no l egi t i mat e concer n - -

i . e. , i t t r acked pet i t i oner on al l eveni ngs, on al l weekends and

on vacat i on. Per haps i t woul d be i mpossi bl e, or unr easonabl y

di f f i cul t , so t o l i mi t a GPS sear ch of an empl oyee' s car as t o

el i mi nat e al l sur vei l l ance of pr i vat e acti vi t y - - especi al l y when

t he empl oyee chooses t o go home i n the mi ddl e of t he day, and to

conceal t hi s f r om hi s empl oyer . But sur el y i t woul d have been

possi bl e to st op shor t of seven- day, t went y- f our hour

sur vei l l ance f or a f ul l mont h. The St at e managed t o r emove a GPS

devi ce f r om pet i t i oner ' s car t hr ee t i mes when i t sui t ed t he

- 8 -


9/19

- 9 - No. 123

St at e' s conveni ence t o do so - - t wi ce t o r epl ace i t wi t h a new

devi ce, and a t hi r d t i me af t er t he sur vei l l ance ended. Why coul d

i t not al so have r emoved t he devi ce when, f or exampl e, pet i t i oner

was about t o st ar t hi s annual vacat i on?

I t i s t r ue t hat none of t he evi dence used agai nst

pet i t i oner i n t hi s case r esul t ed f r om sur vei l l ance out si de of

busi ness hour s. Or di nar i l y, when a sear ch has exceeded i t s

per mi ssi bl e scope, t he suppr essi on of i t ems f ound dur i ng t he

per mi ssi bl e por t i on of t he sear ch i s not r equi r ed ( see Uni t ed

St ates v Mart el l , 654 F2d 1356, 1361 [ 9t h Ci r 1981] [ excessi ve

l engt h of det ent i on di d not t ai nt sear ch wher e not hi ng new was

l ear ned "dur i ng t he unl awf ul por t i on" of t he det ent i on] ; Uni t ed

St ates v Cl ark, 891 F2d 501, 505 [ 4t h Ci r 1989] [ same] ) . But we

hol d t hat r ul e t o be i nappl i cabl e t o GPS sear ches l i ke t he

pr esent one, i n l i ght of t he ext r aor di nar y capaci t y of a GPS

devi ce t o per mi t "[ c] onst ant , r el ent l ess t r acki ng of anyt hi ng"

( Weaver , 12 NY3d at 441) . Where an empl oyer conduct s a GPS

sear ch wi t hout maki ng a r easonabl e ef f or t t o avoi d t r acki ng an

empl oyee out si de of busi ness hour s, t he sear ch as a whol e must be

consi der ed unr easonabl e. That concl usi on concededl y r equi r es

suppr essi on of t he GPS evi dence her e; t he St ate has di scl ai med

any rel i ance on t he bal anci ng t est t hat we use when deci di ng

whet her t o i nvoke t he suppr essi on r emedy i n admi ni st r at i ve

pr oceedi ngs ( see Mat t er of Boyd v Const ant i ne, 81 NY2d 189

[ 1993] ) .

- 9 -


10/19

- 10 - No. 123

The consequence of suppress i on i n t hi s case i s not t o

pr ecl ude t he St at e f r om di sci pl i ni ng pet i t i oner . As t he maj or i t y

and t he di ssent i ng J ust i ces i n t he Appel l at e Di vi si on agr eed,

onl y f our of t he 11 count s on whi ch pet i t i oner was f ound gui l t y

depended on GPS evi dence, and onl y t hose f our charges need be

di smi ssed. As t o t he other s, t he GPS evi dence was ei t her

subst ant i al l y dupl i cat ed by E- ZPass r ecor ds or was whol l y

i r r el evant . Whet her t he seven survi vi ng charges warr ant t he same

or a l esser penal t y i s a mat t er t o be deci ded, i n t he f i r st

i nst ance, by t he Commi ss i oner of Labor on r emand.

Accor di ngl y, t he j udgment of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on

shoul d be r ever sed, wi t h cost s, char ges one, t wo, t hr ee and si x

agai nst pet i t i oner di smi ssed, and mat t er r emi t t ed t o t he

Appel l at e Di vi si on wi t h di r ect i ons t o remand to t he Commi ssi oner

of Labor f or r edet er mi nat i on of t he penal t y.

- 10 -


11/19

Mat t er of Mi chael Cunni ngham v New Yor k St at e Depar t ment of Labor

No. 123

ABDUS- SALAAM, J . ( concur r i ng) :

The maj or i t y s appl i cat i on of t he wor kpl ace except i on

t o t he warr ant r equi r ement may be a wel l - i nt ent i oned ef f or t t o

smoot h the way f or government empl oyers t o i nvest i gat e t i me t hef t

and ot her wor kpl ace mi sconduct . However , t he maj or i t y' s deci si on

has expandedt hi sexcept i on wel l beyond i t s i nt ended scope, and

- 1 -


12/19

- 2 - No. 123

has r un af oul of t he pr ot ect i ons af f or ded by New Yor k

Const i t ut i on ar t i cl e I , 12 and t he Four t h Amendment by

i nf r i ngi ng on a gover nment empl oyee' s " r easonabl e expect at i on of

pr i vacy" ( Katz v Uni t ed St ates, 389 US 347, 360 [ 1967] [ Har l an,

J . concur r i ng] ) .

I woul d hol d t hat t he St at e cannot , wi t hout a war r ant ,

pl ace a GPS on a per sonal , pr i vat e car t o i nvest i gat e wor kpl ace

mi sconduct . Accor di ngl y, thewar r ant l ess sear ch i n t hi s case was

unconst i t ut i onal under bot h t he Feder al and St at e Const i t ut i ons,

and the evi dence obt ai ned by t he war r ant l ess sear ch must be

excl uded f r om t he di sci pl i nar y hear i ng.

We hel d i n Peopl e v Weaver ( 12 NY3d 433 [ 2009] ) , and

t he Supr eme Cour t hel d i nUni t ed St ates v J ones ( 132 S Ct 945

[ 2012] ) , t hat t he use of a GPS devi ce by government l aw enf orcers

t o t r ack t he movement s of a vehi cl e i s a sear ch subj ect t o

const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons. I n Weaver , we expl ai ned that GPS

t r acki ng i s mor e i nt r usi ve t han si mpl y f ol l owi ng a car , and t hat

GPS sur vei l l ance i s not anal ogous t o vi sual sur vei l l ance f or t he

pur poses of const i t ut i onal anal ysi s ( see Weaver , 12 NY3d at 441) .

"GPS i s not a mer e enhancement of humansensor y capaci t y, i t f aci l i t at es a newt echnol ogi cal per cept i on of t he wor l d i nwhi ch t he si t uat i on of any obj ect may bef ol l owed and exhaust i vel y recor ded over , i n

most cases, a pr act i cal l y unl i mi t ed per i od.The pot ent i al f or a si mi l ar capt ure ofi nf or mat i on or ' seei ng' by l aw enf or cementwoul d r equi r e, at a mi ni mum, mi l l i ons ofaddi t i onal pol i ce of f i cer s and camer as onever y st r eet l amp" ( i d. at 441) .

- 2 -


13/19

- 3 - No. 123

I t t ook "l i t t l e i magi nat i on" f or us t o conj ur e t he t ypes of

"i ndi sput abl y pr i vat e" i nf or mat i on t hat woul d be "di scl osed i n

t he dat a" f r om a GPS devi ce pl ant ed on a per son' s vehi cl e:

"[ T] r i ps to t he psychi at r i st , t he pl ast i csur geon, t he abor t i on cl i ni c, t he AI DSt r eat ment cent er , t he st r i p cl ub, t hecr i mi nal def ense at t or ney, t he by- t he- hourmot el , t he uni on meet i ng, t he mosque,synagogue or chur ch, t he gay bar and on andon. What t he t echnol ogy yi el ds and recor dswi t h br eat ht aki ng qual i t y and quant i t y i s ahi ghl y det ai l ed pr of i l e, not si mpl y of wher ewe go, but by easy i nf er ence, of ourassoci at i ons pol i t i cal , r el i gi ous, ami cabl e

and amor ous, t o name onl y a f ew and of t hepat t er n of our pr of essi onal and avocat i onalpur sui t s" ( i d. at 441- 442; see J ones, 132 SCt at 955 [ ci t i ng Weaver f or t he pr oposi t i ont hat "GPS moni t or i ng gener ates a pr eci se,compr ehensi ve r ecord of a per son' s publ i cmovement s t hat r ef l ect s a weal t h of det ai labout [hi s or ] her f ami l i al , pol i t i cal ,pr of essi onal , r el i gi ous, and sexualassoci at i ons"] ) .

Recogni zi ng t hat , [ w] i t hout j udi ci al over si ght , t he use of [ GPS]

devi cespr esent s a si gni f i cant and, t o our mi nds, unaccept abl e

r i sk of abuse" ( Weaver , 12 NY3d at 447) , we hel d t hat" [ u] nder

our St at e Const i t ut i on . . . t he i nst al l at i on and use of a GPS

devi ce t o moni t or an i ndi vi dual ' s wher eabout s r equi r es a war r ant

suppor t ed by pr obabl e cause" ( i d. ) .

The pr i vacy and const i t ut i onal concer ns r ecogni zed i n

Weaver and J ones appl y equal l y i n t hi s case. GPS i s a

"sophi st i cat ed and power f ul t echnol ogy t hat i s easi l y and cheapl y

depl oyed and has vi r t ual l y unl i mi t ed and r emar kabl y pr eci se

t r acki ng capabi l i t y" ( Weaver , 12 NY3d at 441) . Sur el y, a

- 3 -


14/19

- 4 - No. 123

gover nment empl oyer ' s i nt er est i n det er mi ni ng whether i t s

empl oyees are f al si f yi ng t i me r ecor ds i s j ust as i mpor t ant as t he

St at e' s i nt er est i n pr ot ect i ng t he publ i c f r om danger ous

cr i mi nal s. Yet , t he maj or i t y, i gnor i ng our concer ns i n Weaver ,

woul d per mi t gover nment empl oyer s who suspect empl oyees of

mi sconduct t o use GPS devi ces, wi t hout f i r st obt ai ni ng a war r ant ,

t o t r ack and moni t or t hose empl oyees' pr eci se whereabout s dur i ng

busi ness hour s. As we not ed i n Weaver , i t i s not di f f i cul t t o

i magi ne t he i nher ent l y per sonal and pr i vat e i nf or mat i on such

sur vei l l ance wi l l yi el d, even i f l i mi t ed t o wor ki ng hour s. Whi l e

government empl oyer s need t o know whet her t hei r empl oyees

act ual l y wor ked dur i ng t he hour s f or whi ch t hey wer e pai d, publ i c

empl oyees are ent i t l ed t o at l east some expect at i on of pr i vacy

concer ni ng t hei r movement s t hroughout t he workday. A sear ch as

i nt r usi ve as GPS sur vei l l ance, whi ch, as t hi s case demonst r at es,

i s hi ghl y suscept i bl e t o abuse wi t hout j udi ci al over si ght ,

r equi r es a war r ant .

I nvest i gat i ng wor kpl ace mi sconduct i s i ndi sput abl y an

i mpor t ant r esponsi bi l i t y of a gover nment empl oyer . As t he

Supreme Cour t st at ed i n O' Connor v Or t ega ( 480 US 709 [1987] ) :

"Publ i c empl oyer s have an i nt er esti n ensur i ng t hat t hei r agenci esoper at e i n an ef f ect i ve and

ef f i ci ent manner , and t he work oft hese agenci es i nevi t abl y suf f er sf r om t he i nef f i ci ency,i ncompetence, mi smanagement , orother work- r el ated mi sf easance ofi t s empl oyees" ( 480 US at 724) .

- 4 -


15/19

- 5 - No. 123

O Connor i nvol ved t he war r ant l ess sear ch of a government

empl oyee' s of f i ce and sei zur e of per sonal i t ems f r om hi s desk and

f i l e cabi net ( see i d. at 713) . The Supr eme Cour t appl i ed t he

st andar d of r easonabl eness under al l t he ci r cumst ances ( i d. at

725- 726) r ather t han a pr obabl e cause st andard, and uphel d t he

sear ch. I mport ant l y, i n anal yzi ng t he Four t h Amendment

r est r ai nt s upon a wor kpl acesear ch, t he Cour t st at ed t hat i t was

essent i al f i r st t o del i neat e t he boundaries of t he wor kpl ace

cont ext ( i d. at 715 [ emphasi s added] ) .

"The workpl ace i ncl udes t hose areas and i t emst hat ar e r el at ed t o wor k and ar e gener al l ywi t hi n t he empl oyer s cont r ol . At a hospi t al ,f or exampl e, t he hal l ways, caf et er i a,of f i ces, desks and f i l e cabi net s, among ot herar eas, ar e al l par t of t he wor kpl ace. Theseareas r emai n part of t he workpl ace cont exteven i f t he empl oyee has pl aced per sonali t ems i n t hem, such as a phot ogr aph pl aced i na desk or a l et t er post ed on an empl oyeebul l et i n boar d" ( i d. at 715- 716) .

Ot hercour t s i nt er pr et i ng O' Connor have l i mi t ed

appl i cat i on of t he wor kpl ace except i on t o t he wor kpl ace i t sel f .

The Ni nt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat t he "wor kpl ace war r ant except i on" di d

not appl y wher e, al t hough t he sear ch ar ose i n t he cont ext of a

wor kpl ace i nvest i gat i on, i t was car r i ed out i n t he home ( Del i a v

Ci t y of Ri al t o, 621 F3d 1069, 1076 n 4 [ 9t h Ci r 2010] , r evd on

ot her gr ounds Fi l ar sky v Del i a, 132 S Ct 1657 [ 2012] ) . I n a case

i nvol vi ng t he Uni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce' s at t empt t o gai n

access t o i t s empl oyee' s medi cal r ecor ds i n connect i on wi t h an

i nvest i gat i on i nt o pot ent i al cr i mi nal mi sconduct and l i abi l i t y

- 5 -


16/19

- 6 - No. 123

f or heal t h benef i t s and wor ker s' compensat i on, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

of t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k r ej ect ed t he Post al

Ser vi ce' s argument t hat , based on O' Connor , a reasonabl eness

st andard appl i ed and a sear ch warr ant was not r equi r ed. The

cour t hel d:

"O' Connor appl i ed sol el y t osear ches of t he workpl ace. TheSupreme Cour t def i ned t he workpl aceas ' t hose ar eas and i t ems t hat ar er el at ed t o wor k and ar e gener al l ywi t hi n t he empl oyer ' s cont r ol . 'Although the term 'work-related'

was used by the O'Connor Court,neither O'Connor nor the casesconsidered by the Court in reachingits holding involved any areaphysically outside of theworkplace" ( Nat l . Assn. of Let t erCar r i er s, AFL- CI O v US Post alSer vi ce, 604 F Supp 2d 665, 675- 676[ SD NY 2009] [ emphasi s added] ) .

The maj or i t y' s deci si on ext ends " t he boundar i es of t he

workpl ace" ( O Connor , 480 US at 715) f ar beyond t he par amet ers

del i neat ed by t he O' Connor Cour t . Thi s case i nvol ves t he sear ch

of an empl oyee s per sonal car , not hi s of f i ce, desk, f i l e

cabi net s ( see i d. at 715- 716) , or any ot her ar ea physi cal l y

i nsi de t he wor kpl ace. I r ej ect t he not i on t hat gover nment

empl oyeeswho use thei r car s f or t r avel t o and f r om wor k and

wor k- r el at ed obl i gat i ons pl ace t hose car s wi t hi n t he ambi t of

t hei r "empl oyer [ s' ] cont r ol " such t hat t hey coul d be subj ect ed t o

a war r ant l ess sear ch ( i d. at 715) . A per sonal car i s al so not

aki n t o a l et t er post ed on a bul l et i n boar d, a phot ogr aph

di spl ayed on a desk, or ot her personal i t ems an empl oyee may

- 6 -


17/19

- 7 - No. 123

br i ng wi t hi n t he "areas" t r adi t i onal l y under st ood as "par t of t he

wor kpl ace cont ext " ( i d. at 716) .

The pot ent i al danger s of t he maj or i t y' s deci si on ar e

evi dent when one consi der s a government empl oyee, suspect ed of

f al si f yi ng t i me r ecor ds, who does not dr i ve a car dur i ng t he

wor kday, but i nst ead l eaves t he of f i ce on f oot or t akes publ i c

t r ansi t . Ther e i s now l i t t l e t o pr event a gover nment empl oyer

f r om pl aci ng a GPS devi ce on t hat per son' s bag, br i ef case, shoe,

cel l phone, wat ch, or pur se - - anyt hi ng t hat i s used dur i ng t he

wor kday ( l i ke pet i t i oner ' s car ) - - t o det er mi ne whet her , based on

t he t r acki ng dat a t r ansmi t t ed by that devi ce, t he empl oyee i s

l ocat ed wher e he or she pur por t s t o be. The maj or i t y s st atement

t hat peopl e have a gr eat er expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he l ocat i on

of t hei r bodi es t han i n t he l ocat i on of t hei r car s ( see maj or i t y

op at 6- 7) , avoi ds addr essi ng t he poi nt t hat pet i t i oner s

empl oyer was usi ng el ect r oni c sur vei l l ance t o t r ackpetitioners

l ocat i on; t r acki ng hi s per sonal car was onl y a means t o t hat end.

The l ocat i on of pet i t i oner s car was r el evant onl y i nsof ar as i t

i ndi cat ed pet i t i oner s wher eabout s. I t al l comes down t o

el ect r oni cal l y t r acki ng t he movement s of t he empl oyee, whi ch

coul d be accompl i shed by t r acki ng t he empl oyee s per sonal car ( as

i n t hi s case) or any ot her per sonal pr oper t y that t he empl oyee

chooses t o use . . . dur i ng t he busi ness day ( maj or i t y op at

7) .

I al so di sagr ee wi t ht he maj or i t y' s suggest i on t hat t he

- 7 -


18/19

- 8 - No. 123

concer ns t hat " l ed t heO' Connor Cour t t o di spense wi t h t he

warr ant r equi r ement " are pr esent her e ( see maj or i t y op at 7) .

Ther e woul d be no ser i ous di sr upt i on t o t he r out i ne conduct of

busi ness by requi r i ng a government empl oyer t o obt ai n a war r ant

t o search an empl oyee' s per sonal car ( O' Connor , 480 US at 722) .

And mandat i ng t hat gover nment empl oyer s navi gat e "unwi el dy

war r ant pr ocedur es" har dl y seems " unr easonabl e" ( i d. ) gi ven t he

bevy of per sonal i nf or mat i on t hey wi l l l i kel y uncover f r om a GPS

sear ch t r acki ng an empl oyee' s per sonal car . Ul t i mat el y, t he

al l eged bur den i mposed upon gover nment empl oyer s by requi r i ng a

war r ant f or t he sear ch of a per sonal car shoul d have l i t t l e

bear i ng on t he quest i on of whet her t hey ar e const i t ut i onal l y

r equi r ed t o obt ai n one bef or e conduct i ng the sear ch.

Cr i t i cal her e i s t hat t he war r ant l ess sear ch was of

pet i t i oner ' spersonal car , and not empl oyer - i ssued pr oper t y ( see

Ci t y of Ont ar i o v Quon, 130 S Ct 2619, 2624 [ 2010] [ appl yi ng the

O' Connor workpl ace except i on t o t he warr ant l ess search of t ext

messages sent and r ecei ved on a pager " t he empl oyer owned and

i ssued t o an empl oyee"] ; Levent hal v Knapek, 266 F3d 64, 75- 76

[ 2d Ci r 2001] [ appl yi ng wor kpl ace except i on t o sear ch of of f i ce

comput er ] ; Mat t er of Moor e v Const ant i ne, 191 AD2d 769, 771 [ 3d

Dept 1993] [ uphol di ng war r ant l ess sear ch of a pol i ce l ocker ] ) .

Owner shi p al l ows t he gover nment empl oyer some l evel of cont r ol

over i t s pr oper t y, and may di mi ni sh t he expect at i on of pr i vacy

empl oyees enj oy i n t hat pr oper t y ( see Quon, 130 S Ct at 2629) .

- 8 -


19/19

- 9 - No. 123

I ndeed, t hi s may have been a di f f er ent case i f t he vehi cl e

sear ched was owned by and had been i ssued to pet i t i oner by t he

St at e ( see Demai ne v Samuel s, 29 Fed Appdx 671, 675 [ 2d Ci r 2002]

[ wor kpl ace except i on appl i ed t o sear ch of empl oyer - i ssued car ] ) .

But t hat i s not what occur r ed her e: i nst ead, t he St at e sear ched

pet i t i oner ' s per sonal car t hat he and hi s f ami l y used on a dai l y

basi s. No New Yor k court has ever per mi t t ed government empl oyer s

t o sear ch empl oyees' per sonal cars wi t hout a warr ant , and t he

maj or i t y creates a danger ous precedent by al l owi ng t hem t o do so

now.

The r ami f i cat i ons of t he maj or i t y' s deci si on wi l l

ext end f ar beyond t hi s case. Al l gover nment empl oyees, at al l

l evel s, i n al l t hr ee br anches of gover nment , may now be subj ect

t o el ect r oni c sur vei l l ance based upon a mer e r easonabl eness

st andar d, wi t hout any j udi ci al over si ght at t he i ncept i on of t he

sear ch. Gi ven t he maj or i t y s i mpr i mat ur of war r ant l ess GPS

t r acki ng, l ess i nt r usi ve met hods f or i nvest i gat i ng gover nment

empl oyees wi l l al most cer t ai nl y be r epl aced wi t h el ect r oni c

sur vei l l ance. The pot ent i al f or abuse t hat we r ecogni zed i n

Weaver i s now cl oser t o becomi ng a r eal i t y.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

J udgment r eversed, wi t h cost s, and mat t er r emi t t ed t o t he

Appel l at e Di vi si on, Thi r d Depar t ment , wi t h di r ect i ons t o remandt o t he Commi ssi oner of Labor f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs i naccor dance wi t h t he opi ni on her ei n. Opi ni on by J udge Smi t h.J udges Gr af f eo, Read and Pi got t concur . J udge Abdus- Sal aamconcur s i n r esul t i n an opi ni on i n whi ch Chi ef J udge Li ppman andJ udge Ri ver a concur .

Deci ded J une 27, 2013

- 9 -

Cunningham v. NYS Dept. of Labor

Documents

Transcript of Cunningham v. NYS Dept. of Labor