{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

AngevineSlaninaBrief - 1 ,andtheabilityofa officewas"...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. Slanina had a private office at the new fire station, and the ability of a  select few of his coworkers to access the office does not mean that the  office was "so open to fellow employees or the public that no  expectation of privacy is reasonable."  O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 718, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (plurality). We address employees' expectations of privacy in the workplace on a case-by- case basis. O'Connor v. Ortega,   480 U.S. 709 , 718, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d  714 (1987). "Within the workplace context, [the Supreme Court] has  recognized that employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy  against intrusions by police."  Id.  at 716, 107 S.Ct. 1492.  2. a. McDonald v. Chicago 561 U. S. ____ - 08-1521 (2010) b. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City of Chicago on December 18, 2008. The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and combined with a similar case, NRA v. Chicago . Oral arguments were heard on May 26, 2009.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}