Legal Issues: Locker Searches

I need to say that this posting should not be used as legal advice. This question was posed to my class as part of a college course. The response is my fault.

In Chicago Fire Fighters IAFF Local 2 v. City of Chicago, 717 F Supp. 1314 (N.D. Ill, 1989), fire station locker searches were upheld as constitutional because the firefighters did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their lockers. What if the fire department did not inform the firefighters - through discussion with the union and issuance of general orders - that the locker searches would be conducted? Would the case come out the same way?
When considering the admissibility of the cooler of beer found during a search of the fire fighters in-station locker, the question arises whether the fire officials from the City of Chicago Fire Department were required to obtain a search warrant before the search of the locker was conducted. This action raises several issues that must be considered. 1) seach and seizure law regarding warrant requirements and reasonable expectional of privacy of public employees in their place of work.
Existing Laws

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (U.S. Constitution)

The Fourth Amendment applies to the actions of the federal government and federal employees. The states, counties, and municipalities were included in the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment by virture of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which reads in pertinent part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. (U.S. Constitution)

In O’Connor v. Ortega (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court found that public employees do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their work are noting “Regardless of any expectation of privacy in the office itself, the undisputed evidence supports the conclusion that respondent had a reasonable expectation of privacy at least in his desk and file cabinets” (para.1). Yet the Court differetiates as to who condcts the search in stating “However, the operational realities of the workplace may make some public employees' expectations of privacy unreasonable when an intrusion is by a supervisor, rather than a law enforcement official” (para 1).
The U.S. Supreme Court upholds workplace searches that in Shields v Burge (1984), stating that “A workplace search to investigate work-related misconduct ordinarily is ‘justified at its inception’ if reasonable grounds exist to suspect that the search will turn up evidence of the employee's misconduct” (Sect.1, para.6). Further the U.S. Supreme Court considered in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assn. (1989), that the government has an interest in regulating the conduct of employees whose job is considered safety-sensitive when “That interest presents ‘special needs’ beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements” (Sect. 2, para. a)
The final case having bearing on the issue of workplace searches without a warrant in highly regulated businesses is New York v. Burger (1987) The U.S. Supreme Court found that “[a written policy] provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant” (Sect. 2, para. b)
Analysis
The Chicago firefighters contend that their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated believing that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplace, more specifically their lockers The reasoned that since they is a reasonable expectation of privacy in desks and file cabinets, as in O’Connor, private securable areas such as lockers should be protected as well.
The U.S. Court of Appeals indicated that the Chicago Fire Department acted within it’s legal rights in conducting the lockers inspections. The fire department had conducted the inspections after “complaints from neighbors of the firehouse and subsequent surveillance operation which lead CFD officials to reasonably suspect that alcohol and/or drug use or possession…was occuring [at the firehouse]” (Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local 2 v. City of Chicago, 1989). Thus, the Chicago Fire Department’s inspection would be permissable as the firefighters would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as the situation closely resembled Shields wherein the department beleived that employee misconduct was occuring.
The Skinner Court further supported the Chicago Fire Department officials’ decision to conduct the locker inspections in that it provided the fire department’s “interest presents ‘special needs’ beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements” (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assn., 1989).
The firefighters whose lockers were searched were previously advised by Chicago Fire Department General Order 85-007 that all lockers in the fire stations were subject to periodic inspection. Thus there was a written polic in effect as noted in Burger (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court found that in a closely regulated industry if a written policy was in place that inspections could be conducted without a warrant.
Conclusion
The Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local 2 claimed that evidence found in a seach of the in station lockers of assigned to fire fighters was a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The U.S. Court of Appeals decided that in order of the City of Chicago Fire Department to conduct locker searches without a warrant, it must have a reasonable suspicion that misconduct was occuring at the firehouse and a written policy advising the employees that they had no reasonable expectation of privacy their work space, including lockers. As stated previously, there was a reasonable suspicion of firefighter misconduct based upon tips indicating use of alcohol and drug use and possession at the firehouse and there was a written policy in effect. The City of Chicago Fire Department did not violate the rights of the individual firefighters and the evidence seized during that locker search was admissable as evidence.
However, if the City of Chicago Fire Department had not had General Order 85-007 and had they not made assurances that each individual employed by the department had first hand knowledge of the terms and expectations of the Order, the result of the case may have been different.
In Burger, the U.S. Supreme Court suggests that no warrant is needed if there is a written policy. Thus, in the absence of a written policy regarding locker searches, a warrant would be needed.

Alarms and responsibility

Who's guilty of doing this raise your hands (mine is up)!!

Chief seeks investigation of Tampa firefighters' response to alarm

Copyright 2003 Times Publishing Company
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
July 10, 2003 Thursday 2 Late Tampa Edition

A red hydrant sits outside Building 7 at Camden Bayside apartments on West Shore Boulevard, but firefighters didn't use it Tuesday at 6:45 p.m. when responding to a fire alarm. Instead, they left. An hour later, three apartments were on fire. Now, Tampa Fire Rescue Chief Aria Green is calling for an investigation. He wants to know why the captain of Engine 19 didn't check the fire alarm. "We have to determine if his actions were appropriate or not," Green said Wednesday. "At first blush, I would think that they were not appropriate."

Firefighters are supposed to get out of the truck when checking an alarm. It is believed these firefighters did not. They are supposed to check out the alarm panel, Green said, and "Try to find out what is causing the system to go into alarm." They are also supposed to talk to residents and see if they smell smoke. The officer in charge of Engine 19, whose name is not being released, could face disciplinary action, Green said. But he might not be totally at fault. Residents say that when Engine 19 arrived on scene, Camden maintenance worker Joe Hailey told them everything was under control. The firefighters left shortly afterwards, they said.

When reached at Camden's leasing office Wednesday, Hailey declined comment. Green said he is researching the maintenance worker's involvement, but said Engine 19's personnel still should have checked out the alarm. He said the investigation should be finished by Friday. The fire likely started with a loud lightning clap around 6:45 p.m. Tuesday. Carli Segelson, 26, was in her third floor apartment at Camden Bayside, 6301 S West Shore Boulevard, with her friend and next door neighbor, Elizabeth Malm, 24. Segelson was trying on a suit she bought at Ann Taylor. A studio operator at WTSP Ch. 10, she wants someday to be a reporter and was working on a studio tape. Then, she became news.

After the loud clap, the lights went off in her bedroom. She flipped a switch in the fuse box "and it was fine, or so we thought," she said. Instantly, she smelled smoke and sulfur, she said. Her friend Malm went outside in the rain with an umbrella. "We wanted to know if we should call the fire department," said Malm. But Engine 19, responding to an automatic fire alarm, was already there. So were several residents and Hailey, the maintenance worker. He showed the residents a light in the stairwell, which was charred and black, and told Segelson and Malm that the light blew and that's why they smelled smoke. The women saw Hailey talking to firefighters and then the residents saw the firefighters drive off. "From what we saw, they never got off the truck," said Malm. Segelson, who said she still smelled smoke, went back to her apartment. Twenty minutes later, "I heard a crackling sound." She went outside and looked up "and I could see flames going all across." She knocked on her neighbor's door. "The building's on fire," she said. "We need to get out of here."

Segelson called 911. This time, Engine 15 came out within seven minutes, at 7:40 p.m. "They were awesome," she said. "They helped us out a lot." Damage is estimated at $200,000, most occurring to Segelson's living room and kitchen and the roof of Building 7. Two lower level apartments had water damage. About half a dozen residents spent the night at a hotel Tuesday. "It is disturbing that firefighters didn't check out anything the first time," said Segelson, standing among the rubble in her apartment Wednesday. "The whole thing could have been prevented." Carli Segelson, 26, takes stock of fire damage in her apartment at Camden Bayside in South Tampa. Bob Tucker of Belfor U.S.A. sweeps up. Firefighters' response to could lead to an inquiry.