1
After reviewing the case, O'Connor v. Ortega, this case involved Dr. Magno
Ortega, who was a physician and psychiatrist employed by Napa State Hospital
and was accused of sexual harassment of female employees and inappropriate
disciplinary action against a resident. Hospital officials were concerned about
possible misconduct and placed the doctor on paid administrative leave. They
later investigated and searched the doctor's office several times and seized
personal items and items belonging to the state. No formal property inventory
was taken in the office, but all the papers not seized were stored for the doctor to
retrieve. After the investigation, his employment was terminated.
If I were the judge proceeding over this case, I would rule in favor of Dr.
Ortega. The petitioners argued that the search was justified to secure state
property and align with the hospital's policy of conducting routine inventories of
state property for terminated employees. However, this reasoning is flawed as
Dr. Ortega was not yet terminated during the search. Furthermore, there was no
policy in place to inventory the offices of employees on administrative leave,
and no formal inventory of the property of Dr. Ortega's office was conducted.
This leads me to believe that this justification was an excuse for the search. As
an employee, Dr. Ortega had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his desk and
file cabinets. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches
by the government does not disappear simply because the government has the
right to make reasonable intrusions in its capacity as an employer. Therefore,
this investigatory search should have been evaluated under the Fourth
Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements.