In Lange v. McGinnis, a Michigan police captain deleted all the files on a former employee’s hard drive before returning it to him. The employee sued the city and the captain alleging an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit held that the police captain was protected from the suit under qualified immunity because nothing indicated his actions were impermissible.
In Williams v. City of Alexander, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit affirmed a decision to deny qualified immunity to an Arkansas Police Chief who allegedly had a subordinate officer arrested in retaliation for supporting the City’s mayor. Although qualified immunity usually protects public officials from personal liability for actions carried out in their official roles, the Court determined that the Chief could not assert qualified immunity for withholding exculpatory information in an arrest warrant of an officer as a means of retaliating against the officer’s political alignment.
In Allen v. Schiff, a U.S. Court of Appeals determined that a random drug testing procedure did not violate a New York correctional officer’s Fourth Amendment rights. The former correctional officer sued Sullivan County, New York, claiming that the County violated her privacy rights when it required her to perform a random, intrusive urine test for drugs. The Court found that the random testing did not violate the officer’s Constitutional rights because the corrections officer had a substantially diminished expectation of privacy, the drug test “was intrusive but not inappropriately so,” and the County had a compelling interest in effecting the test.
In Nissen v. Pierce County, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two held that “because some of the private cellular phone call logs and text messages . . . [of a prosecutor that were requested by the Plaintiff] may qualify as . . . [‘public records’ under the state’s Public Records Act] the superior court erred in granting the County’s . . . motion to dismiss.” The Court stated that “call logs for a government official’s private cellular phone constitute ‘public records’ only with regard to the calls that relate to government business and only if these call logs are used or retained by the government agency.” The Court also stated “text messages sent or received by a government official constitute ‘public records’ only if the text messages relate to government business.”
The Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals has found a Pennsylvania State Police pre-hire tattoo policy, was properly applied without violating an applicant’s Constitutional rights in Scavone v. Pennsylvania State Police. Although officially unpublished and not precedent setting, the case deals with an issue of emerging importance.
After being subjected to repeated urine-sample drug tests, a New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) Officer, Ada Perez, filed complaint. The MTA moved to dismiss. In Perez v. Metro. Transp. Auth., the District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss Officer Perez’s complaint, reasoning that sufficient information existed for a jury to find in Officer Perez’s favor on her unreasonable search and seizure claim.
