This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-10-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| One of the factors stated in O'Connor which are relevant in determining whether an employee's expectation of privacy in the workplace is reasonable is the existence of a workplace privacy policy.[48] In one case, the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit held that a state university employee has not shown that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer files where the university's computer policy, the computer user is informed not to expect privacy if the university has a legitimate reason to conduct a search. The user is specifically told that computer files, including e-mail, can be searched when the university is responding to a discovery request in the course of litigation. Petitioner employee thus cannot claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights when university officials conducted a warrantless search of his computer for work-related materials.[49] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As the Court observed in Alejano v. Cabuay,[24] it is impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail security; and while pre-trial detainees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon confinement, the fact of their detention makes their rights more limited than those of the public. | |||||
|
2007-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Alejano v. Cabuay,[60] lawyers of soldiers and pre-trial detainees accused of coup d'etat before the Regional Trial Court of Makati came to this Court bewailing the regulations adopted by the Chief of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) who had custody over their clients. Therein petitioners claimed that their constitutional rights were violated because they were prevented from seeing the detainees--their clients--at any time of the day or night. They also alleged that the detainees-- constitutional right to privacy of communication were violated because ISAFP officials opened and read the personal letters of some of the detainees. They also challenged, as unusual and excessive punishment, the presence of the bars separating the detainees from their visitors and the boarding of the iron grills in their cells with plywood. In denying the petition, this Court declared that the fact that the restrictions inherent in detention intrude into the detainees- desire to live comfortably does not convert those restrictions into punishment.[61] Said the Court in Alejano:Bell v. Wolfish [441 U.S. 520 (1979)] pointed out that while a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law, detention inevitably interferes with a detainee's desire to live comfortably. The fact that the restrictions inherent in detention intrude into the detainees' desire to live comfortably does not convert those restrictions into punishment. It is when the restrictions are arbitrary and purposeless that courts will infer intent to punish. Courts will also infer intent to punish even if the restriction seems to be related rationally to the alternative purpose if the restriction appears excessive in relation to that purpose. Jail officials are thus not required to use the least restrictive security measure. They must only refrain from implementing a restriction that appears excessive to the purpose it serves.[62] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||