Patterson v. Chambers Power Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that evidence of misconduct uncovered by an initial workplace search may provide justification for an expanded investigation of the misconduct
• holding that the plaintiff public employee had a privacy interest in his computer after considering he had exclusive use of his desk, file cabinets, and computer in his private office
• noting that employee had been given no notice that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer
• determining that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer but noting the absence of a policy explicitly limiting the scope of privacy in the computer
• “discretionary salary increase was not a form of property protected by the Constitution against deprivation without due process of law”
• a desk, filing cabinet, and computer when the employee had exclusive use of the items and there was no policy of routine searches by the employer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).