• See also: Privacy Rights and Telephone & Pager Monitoring /AV Taping

     California now prohibits requiring or compelling another person to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device, including RFID tagging; civil penalties attach. Calif. Civil Code §52.7 (2007). Note: The U.S. Food and Drug Admin. approved an 11 mm. RFID device for implantation in humans in 2004.
     Special Article: "RFID embedded employee access cards enhance security but raise privacy questions." [2005 FP Aug]
     Law review article, "Relax Don't Do It: Why RFID Privacy Concerns are Exaggerated and Legislation is Premature," by Jerry Brito, 2004 UCLA J. L. Tech. 5. {N/R}
     Oregon’s Supreme Court holds that a public employer can secretly install a device that monitors and reports the location of a government vehicle used by a public employee. In this case, a firefighter ultimately was convicted of First Degree Arson. Appellant did not have a protected privacy interest in keeping her location and work-related activities concealed from her employer. “... neither the attachment of the transmitter to the truck nor the subsequent monitoring of that transmitter’s location invaded a privacy interest of defendant ...” State v. Meredith, SC#S50173, 337 Ore. 299, 96 P.3d 342, 2004 Ore. Lexis 530 (2004). [2004 FP Nov]
     Campus police, who suspected that a cashier was stealing money, lawfully installed a hidden video camera aimed at an employee’s desk. Cowles v. State, #S-8831 (Opin. No. 5418), 23 P.3d 1168 (Alas. 2001); cert. den., 122 S.Ct. 1072 (2002). [2002 FP May]
     Appeals court in Ohio upholds covert video surveillance of an employee’s break room. Brannen v. Bd. of Educ., #CA2000-11-098, 2001 Ohio App. Lexis 3165, 17 IER Cases (BNA) 1405 (Unpub. 2001). [2001 FP 158]
     En banc federal appeals court holds that even if a bargaining agreement expressly authorizes surveillance which is illegal under state law, it would be void and unenforceable under federal labor law.
     Federal bargaining laws cannot not permit employers and unions to agree to violate state criminal laws. Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, #98-55657, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 13385, 255 F.3d 683, 167 LRRM (BNA) 2353 (9th Cir. en banc). [2001 FP 125-6]
     Police Chief’s warrantless cloning of a pager issued to an officer, without notice of routine or random monitoring, was unlawful under the federal Communications Privacy Act. Adams v. City of Battle Creek, #99- 1543, 250 F.3d 980, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 8806, 2001 FED App. 0157P, 69 L.W. 1717 (6th Cir. 5/11/01). [2001 FP 109-110]
     N.H. upholds use of a concealed videocamera in the nonprivate areas of worksites in public buildings. State v. McLellan, #98239, 744 A.2d 611, 1999 N.H. Lexis 162. [2000 FP 126]
     Federal court refuses to dismiss criminal charges against NYPD officer who intercepted the Police Commissioner’s alphanumeric pager messages. U.S. v. Sills, #99 Cr. 1133, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5570 (S.D.N.Y.). [2000 FP 109]
     A divided Ninth Circuit panel rejects a suit by employees who were videotaped in workplace restrooms; the right to sue was preempted by the bargaining agreement. Cramer v. Consol. Frtwys., #98-56154, 209 F.3d 1122, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 7759, 164 LRRM (BNA) 2129, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 321, 00 C.D.O.S. 3184 (9th Cir.). [2000 FP 92-3]
     California courts uphold a $634,000 verdict for secretly videotaping fellow employees in the workplace, even though coworkers had a limited expectation of privacy. Sanders v. ABC, 20 Cal.4th 907, 978 P.2d 67, 1999 Cal. Lexis 3900, 15 IER Cases (BNA) 385; on remand (Unpub. Cal.App., 2d Dist.). [2000 FP 28-9]
     Employer did not violate either federal or state wiretap laws when it installed a video camera in the manager’s office, to learn who was turning off the surveillance system; the camera recorded no sound and showed only movements of workers in the office. Audenreid v. Circuit City, 97 F.Supp.2d 660, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7098, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 651 (E.D.Pa.). {N/R}
     NLRB reaffirms prior order prohibiting an employer from videotaping union picketing activities. Clock Elec. and IBEW L- 38, # 8-CA-26560 & 26646, 1999 NLRB Lexis 503, 328 NLRB #141. [1999 FP 141-2]
     Federal appeals court vacates an injunction against a police dept. for conducting a surveillance of a captain and his lawyer, after the captain filed a discrimination complaint. Plaintiff failed to prove the dept. intended to continue the conduct. Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148 (3rd Cir. 1997). See also Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 2318 and Phil. Mtg. of Relig. Soc. of Friends v. Tate, 519 F.2d 1335 (1975). [1998 FP 151]
     California appellate court, and federal appeals panel in Boston, reject employee suits claiming that workplace videotaping violates their constitutional rights. One involved the secret taping of an office in the county jail; the other site is an alarm office in the phone company, where workers knew of the camera. Sacramento Co. Dep. Sheriffs Assn. v. Sacramento Co., 1996 Cal.App. Lexis 1216, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 12 IER Cases (BNA) 723; Vega-Rodriguez v. P.R. Tel. Co., 1997 U. S. App. Lexis 6517, 110 F.3d 174 (1st Cir.). [1997 FP 75-6]
     The installation of a silent video camera in locker area, which was also utilized for accessing heating and air conditioning systems, was not an “interception” under the Federal Wiretap Act. The Fourth Amendment was not violated because the users of the locker room could be seen by other employees walking into the storage area and because installation of the video camera was based on reports of weapons being brought into the area. Thompson v. Johnson Co. Comm. Coll., 930 F.Supp. 501 (D.Kan. 1996), affirmed, 108 F.3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     Article: Use and Abuse of Surveillance Videos, 85 (1) Ill. Bar. J. 22-27 (Jan. 1997). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court affirms right of a California police officer to sue his department for secretly videotaping his conversation during an internal investigation arising from sexual harassment allegations. Decision based on Cal. Penal Code Sec. 632. Rattray v. City of National City, 51 F.3d 793 (2d opin., 9th Cir. 1995); 36 F.3d 1480 (1st opin.). {N/R}
     WV trial court awards damages to employees who were videotaped in their locker rooms, as part of an employer investigation of worker drug abuse. Anderson v. Monongahela Power Co., Monongahela Co. Cir. Ct. #92-C-483; 39 (1) Security Management (ASIS) 72 (1994). [1995 FP 62]
     Arbitrator upholds a 4-day suspension for the illegal audiotaping of coworker. Tallahassee (City of) and IAFF L-2339, FMCS 93-25242 (1994); 32 (1592) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1453 (1994). [1995 FP 62]
     In a disability claim hearing, surveillance films were admissible to establish the claimant was engaged in employment. Rossi v. WCAB, 642 A.2d 1153 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994). {N/R}
     House Bill to curb electronic monitoring of employees wins subcommittee approval. Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act, H.R. 1900. Senate version is S. 984. [1994 FP 105]
     Rhode Island legislature considers bill to make it illegal for an employer to keep an employee under surveillance while that employee is involved in labor relations activity. H.B. 8214; see ASIS Security Management, Oct. 1994. {N/R}
     Videotape of injured firefighter changing a tire was valid evidence to challenge his right to continued benefits. Large v. Bd. of Mgrs., Retirem. Sys., 623 So.2d 1174 (Ala.App. 1993). [1994 FP 147-8]
     Hawaii suppresses covert videotapes of employee’s relaxation area; workers enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hawaii v. Bonnell, 856 P.2d 1265, 8 IER Cases 1226 (Haw. 1993). [1994 FP 5]
     Federal court dismisses suit by 33 police officers who sued city because a covert videocamera was installed in the men’s room. D’Ambrosio v. City of Concord, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2093, 31 (1504) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 290 (N.D.Cal. 1993). [1993 FP 86]
     Correction officer’s “consent to search form” signed at time of hiring did not authorize her superiors to conduct a clandestine surveillance of the facility’s restrooms. Speer v. Ohio Dept. of Reh. & Corr., 89 Ohio App.3d 276, 624 N.E.2d 251 (1993). [1994 FP 167-8]
     Videotaping of employees in the workplace is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. In re Amoco Petrol., 7 IER Cases (BNA) 854 (7th Cir. 1992). {N/R}
     Prolonged, overt IAD surveillance of an innocent police officer did not violate her 4th, and 14th Amendment rights. Carrillo v. Ward, 770 F.Supp. 815 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). [1992 FP 5]
     Federal appeals panel upholds court-authorized video surveillance of a business premises. Silent video surveillance is not prohibited or regulated by the Federal Wiretapping Act. U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991) 970 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. en banc, 1992); cert. den. 506 U.S. 1005 (1992). {N/R} [1992 FP 5]
     Videotape of unlawful behavior in the workplace is allowed into evidence in a criminal case, because the camera was not concealed. U.S. v. O’Reilly, 7 IER Cases (BNA) 665 (E.D. Pa. 1992). [1992 FP 116-7]
     Investigators who drove pass the plaintiff’s home and followed her car engaged in lawful acts in public areas. Suit for intrusive surveillance dismissed. Figured v. Paralegal Technical Serv., 555 A.2d 663 (N.J.App. 1989); app. dismissed, 583 A.2d 350 (N.J. 1990). {N/R}
     Employer’s surveillance of employee’s home and checking of vehicle licenses from a public location was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Fayard v. Guardsmark Inc., 5 IER Cases (BNA) 516 (E.D. La. 1989).
     Washington appeals court reverses $70,000 verdict given ex-employee pension recipient. City videotaped disabled pensioner’s activities and was sued for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. Jeffers v. City of Seattle, 597 P.2d 899 (Wash. App. 1979).
     Filming of a worker’s comp. claimant while he was outdoors, did not violate his privacy rights. McLain v. Boise Cascade, 271 Or. 549, 533 P.2d 343 (1975). {N/R}
     California Supreme Ct. finds surveillance unreasonable, where investigators enticed the plaintiff to visit Disneyland and filmed her engaging in activities inconsistent with her alleged spinal injuries. She suffered a nervous and physical breakdown, requiring hospitalization, when she learned of the ruse. Unruh v. Truck Insur. Exch., 498 P.2d 1063 (Cal. 1972). {N/R}
     Photographing employees at work is not an invasion of privacy. Truxes v. Kenco, 80 S.D. 104, 119 N.W.2d 914 (1963). {N/R}
     Investigators who sneaked around house and peeped in windows, eavesdropped on conversations and followed the plaintiff were civilly liable for an overly intrusive surveillance. Pinkerton N.D.A. v. Stevens, 132 S.E.2d 19 (Ga.App. 1963). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court upholds right of investigators to persuade the plaintiff to engage in physical activities (in a swimming pool) that he had claimed he could not do because of his injuries. “The pictures speak for themselves.” McGoorty v. Benhart, 305 Ill.App. 458, 27 N.E.2d 289 (1940). {N/R}

• See also: Privacy Rights and Telephone & Pager Monitoring /AV Taping