Facts: Biby was the technology transfer coordinator at the University of Nebraska. One of his responsibilities includes the negotiation of agreements with companies for the research and marketing of new technologies. The university was able to enter into a licensing agreement with Corn Card International for the selling of a new technology. However, another company alleged that the university had granted it rights to market the new technology. Biby was told that the university needed to search his computer files. He refused to sign the consent form. Despite his refusal, a computer specialist conducted a keyword search. It was found out that Bibby misrepresented himself to have been authorized by the university to enter into contracts. Biby sued for violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Issue: whether the university had authority to search Biby's computer files
Held: Court ruled in favor of the university. It cited a university policy that it has the right to search the employees' computers for legitimate reason. In this case, not only was there a policy allowing the un university to search employees email but the search took place within the discovery period for arbitration.
This case likewise affirms that the employees have less expectation of privacy in the workplace …show more content…
The courts however have explicitly warned employers that consent must be an informed consent for the exception to apply. Thus, in Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co_._, 704 F. 2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983) the court found that an employee's knowledge of her employer's capability to monitor private telephone calls was not prior consent under the Act. This case makes it clear that every employer should get its employees' informed consent to monitor electronic communications before doing
Issue: whether the university had authority to search Biby's computer files
Held: Court ruled in favor of the university. It cited a university policy that it has the right to search the employees' computers for legitimate reason. In this case, not only was there a policy allowing the un university to search employees email but the search took place within the discovery period for arbitration.
This case likewise affirms that the employees have less expectation of privacy in the workplace …show more content…
The courts however have explicitly warned employers that consent must be an informed consent for the exception to apply. Thus, in Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co_._, 704 F. 2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983) the court found that an employee's knowledge of her employer's capability to monitor private telephone calls was not prior consent under the Act. This case makes it clear that every employer should get its employees' informed consent to monitor electronic communications before doing