Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article Link 6.1: Bloss, W. P. (1998). Warrantless Search in the Law Enforcement Workplace: Court Interpretation of Employer Practices and Employee Privacy Rights Under the Ortega Doctrine. Police Quarterly, 1(2): 51-69.

One of the earliest areas of employee Fourth Amendment privacy juris prudence in the law enforcement workplace was employer warrantless search. In O'Connor v. Ortega (1987), the United States Supreme Court clarified the doctrine permitting public employers to conduct warrantless searches in the workplace. Using federal and state case law, this paper analyzes lower court interpretation and application of the Ortega doctrine regarding employer warrantless search in the law-enforcement workplace. The paper examines current lower court doctrine and discusses allowable warrantless search practices by law enforcement employers. This study concludes that lower courts, relying on a "balancing of competing interests" test between government and individual privacy, have found employer warrantless noncriminal searches permissible because of a diminished employee "expectation of privacy" in the public workplace. Further, in supplanting traditional Fourth Amendment warrant and probable-cause requirements with a reasonableness standard, the courts have expanded law enforcement employer search authority to include areas such as employee offices, desks, briefcases, lockers and government-issued vehicles.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 6.2: Buerger, M. E. (2002). Supervisory Challenges Arising from Racial Profiling Legislation. Police Quarterly, 5(3): 380-408.

This article addresses problems faced by police supervisors who must ensure compliance with legal and organizational requirements of new laws concerning racial profiling. New responsibilities and difficulties can be expected in six main areas: (a) equipping officers to deal with new public expectations (and misunderstandings) about racial profiling, (b) dealing with instances of “monkey-wrenching” resistance, (c) mediating disputes and citizen complaints, (d) handling cases of discipline and morale problems, (e) selling the program to subordinates (perhaps the most important duty of all), and (f) “managing up” within the organization to provide appropriate resources. In some jurisdictions, supervisors will face a seventh requirement: attending at the scene of any consent search. The article looks only briefly at the distinction between intentional targeting of minorities for unequal treatment and the more insidious influence of cultural biases and stereotypes: The focus is rather on the day-to-day ensuring of compliance. By extension, the article addresses the concerns of street-level officers.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 6.3: Recent Legal Developments. (1985). Criminal Justice Review, 10(2), 61-67.

Once again, the Review highlights a collection of significant Supreme Court decisions in the area of criminal justice. The Court mainly 'fine-tuned" various Fourth Amendment principles, most notably the Terry "stop and frisk" and the Carroll automobile search doctrines.

In deciding the following cases, the Court repeatedly stated its view that the need for a less restricted, more efficient police investigatory process could sometimes outweigh individual rights. However, despite this general "pro police" view, the Court did indicate that it is not always willing to subvert individual rights to the investigatory process. For example, in Winston v. Lee, the court refused to force a suspect to undergo major chest surgery in order for the police to gain possible evidence of a crime. The Court rejected the state's argument that investigative needs were paramount. In Hayes v. Florida, the Court called for the suppression of fingerprints obtained during a detention which was not supported by probable cause. In Garner v. Tennessee, the Court limited a police officer's right to use deadly force. These cases demonstrate that although the Court may, on balance, be pro law enforcement, it will not give police officers absolutely free rein as some commentators have feared.

All case summaries were prepared by Michael R. Neuenkirch, a third year law student, Georgia State University College of Law.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?