Privacy Issues in the Workplace

to the arrest, the Court declined to apply the rules previously applicable to the search of physical objects found on or near the arrestee during his or her arrest.

The Court ruled that cell phones differ both quantitatively and qualitatively from the typical physical object that might be found on an arrestee during an arrest. Of particular note was the immense storage capacity of a cell phone, which permitted individuals to carry around vast quantities of sensitive personal information that they would not have been able to carry on their person separately without a cell phone. Thus, rules that previously permitted the warrantless search of physical items incident to the arrest and that resulted in searches that were narrow in scope due to the physical limitations of the items being searched, would not apply to cell phones. Just as an officer would need a search warrant to search a trunk found incident to an arrest, the officers would also need a search warrant to search a cell phone, which would require a trunk to hold the same number of physical pieces of information found on the cell phone. The Court also rejected the arguments of the respondents that reasons of safety and the need to prevent destruction of evidence permitted a warrantless search of the cell phone. Respondents did not offer evidence based upon actual experience that arresting officers faced harm at the time of the arrest unless they searched the cell phone without a warrant. With respect to arguments on the destruction of evidence, the Court found that steps could be easily taken prior to an arrest to remotely wipe or encrypt data and prevent officers from accessing the phone. In the event the phone was unlocked and accessible to the officer at the time of the arrest, the officers could take simple steps to prevent the phone from being remotely wiped or data encrypted, such as turning off the phone, removing its battery, or keeping the phone powered on and placed it in a Faraday bag that isolates the phone from radio waves. The Supreme Court's decision in Riley established an important privacy interest. This case will likely influence court decisions in civil cases involving discovery issues or investigations where information is sought from a personal smartphone. Williams v. Superior Court 424 Court permitted discovery of names and address of other employees who may have an interest in a class action to recover wages on their behalf over assertion of privacy objections raised by the employer. Court explained that not ever assertion of a privacy interest under the California Constitution must be overcome by a compelling interest. A compelling interest is only required for “an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy.” However, “when lesser interests are at stake,” a “more nuanced framework” applies, “with the strength of the countervailing interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information varying according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures.” 425

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 129