Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 19–27 | Cite as

Review of employee privacy issues: Implications for law enforcement and other public and private sector agencies

  • Bobbie L. Raynes


It has been predicted that the number of lawsuits filed for workplace privacy violations will increase over the next few years primarily because of advances in technological innovations and a change in how workplace privacy is defined. This could have implications for law enforcement agencies as well as other public and private sector agencies. This article examines current interpretations of workplace privacy both in the public and private sectors and how courts have traditionally ruled on various types of privacy issues.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baggs, et al. v. Eagle-Picher Industries, 957 F. 2d 268 (6th Circuit 1992).Google Scholar
  2. Baskerville, D. (1993). 10 things your employer might not tell you.Black Enterprise, 23(11), 298–304.Google Scholar
  3. Brookler, R. (1992). Industry standards in workplace drug testing.Personnel Journal, April, 128–132.Google Scholar
  4. Henshaw, G. & Youmans, K. (1990). Employee privacy in the workplace and an employer's right to conduct workplace searches and surveillance.HR Legal Report, Spring, 1–5.Google Scholar
  5. Leggett v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, 739 P.2d 1083 (Or.-App. 1987).Google Scholar
  6. Leonard, B. (1994). Target stores agree to $2 million settlement.HR News, September, A4.Google Scholar
  7. Litchford, R. (1994). Workplace searches in an administrative investigation.The Police Chief, January, 12.Google Scholar
  8. McNerney, D. (1994). Workplace privacy: Setting boundaries in the information age.HR Focus, 71, 1–3.Google Scholar
  9. Miller v. Motorola, 560 N.E.2d 900 (Ill. App. 1990).Google Scholar
  10. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 109 S.Ct. 1384 (1989).Google Scholar
  11. O'Connor v. Ortega, 107 S.Ct., 1492 (1987).Google Scholar
  12. Ott, T. (1996). No reasonable expectation of privacy in computerized messages.IPMA News, November, 6.Google Scholar
  13. Overman, S. (1996). Privacy issue can pit employer/employee rights.HR News, Winter, 9.Google Scholar
  14. Restatement of Torts (Second), Section 652G (1977).Google Scholar
  15. Rothstein, M.; Craver, C.; Schroeder, E.; Shoben, E.; & VanderVelde, L. (1994).Employment Law, West Pub. Co.: St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  16. Sipior, J. & Ward, B. (1995). The ethical and legal quandary of e-mail privacy.Communications of the ACM, 38, 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 109 S.Ct. 1402 (1989).Google Scholar
  18. Smith, L. (1993). What the boss knows about you.Fortune, 128, 88–94.Google Scholar
  19. Soroka, et al. v. Dayton Hudson Corporation, 235 Cal. App. 3d 654 (1993).Google Scholar
  20. Taibbi, R. (1993). Drug testing: Procedures and privacy issues.Current Health 2, 19, 22–25.Google Scholar
  21. Traynor, M. (1994). Computer e-mail privacy issues unresolved: How extensively can employers monitor messages?The National Law Journal, 16, S2.Google Scholar
  22. Underhill, D. & Linthorst, T. (1996). E-mail in the workplace: How much is private?HR Society for Human Resource Management Newsletter, Winter, 1–5.Google Scholar
  23. Young v. Jackson, 572 So.2d 378 (1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bobbie L. Raynes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations