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.