53 Cited authorities

New Jersey v. T. L. O
469 U.S. 325 (1985) Cited 2,001 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by public-school officials, establishing the standard for finding a violation, but concluding that the claim at issue failed
O'Connor v. Ortega
480 U.S. 709 (1987) Cited 956 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring a warrant for government employers’ work-related searches of employees’ workspaces "would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business and would be unreasonable"
City of Ontario v. Quon
560 U.S. 746 (2010) Cited 334 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the police department's warrantless search of a police officer's pager was reasonable because it was not excessive in scope and was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose
Pell v. Board of Education
34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 5,551 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal
People v. Weaver
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3762 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 126 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding use of GPS device to track suspect for 65 days was search
Delia v. City of Rialto
621 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 96 times
Holding that clearly established law did not put defendants on notice that a direct order "with no attendant threat to . . . employment" would invalidate consent
State v. Campbell
306 Or. 157 (Or. 1988) Cited 134 times
Holding that using a tracking device without a warrant or obviating exigency violates the state constitution
Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Central School District
363 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 84 times
Holding claim related to government's retention of property after seizure raised due process rather than unreasonable seizure claim
Brann Stuart Co. v. Consolidated Sun Ray
396 U.S. 840 (1969) Cited 70 times
Applying exclusionary rule to administrative proceedings before liquor authority with respect to imposition of penalties on license holders
Gudema v. Nassau County
163 F.3d 717 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 93 times
Holding that " deprivation of liberty or property through the conduct of a state employee whose acts are random and unauthorized . . . does not constitute a procedural due process violation so long as the state provides a meaningful remedy thereafter" and noting that an Article 78 proceeding provides a meaningful remedy where violations of due process by a local governmental entity are alleged
Section 7804 - Procedure
N.Y. CPLR 7804 Cited 4,553 times
Characterizing Article 78 proceeding as a “special proceeding” and specifying where such a proceeding may be “brought”
Section 5601 - Appeals to the court of appeals as of right
N.Y. CPLR 5601 Cited 2,354 times
(a) Dissent. An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals as of right in an action originating in the supreme court, a county court, a surrogate's court, the family court, the court of claims or an administrative agency, from an order of the appellate division which finally determines the action, where there is a dissent by at least two justices on a question of law in favor of the party taking such appeal. (b) Constitutional grounds. An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals as of right:
Section 75 - Removal and other disciplinary action
N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 75 Cited 1,296 times
Providing that covered employee "shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty provided in this section except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges pursuant to this section."
Section 1034 - Power to order investigations
N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1034 Cited 127 times
Stating that "law enforcement may not enter the premises where the child or children are believed to be present without a search warrant or another constitutional basis for such entry"
Section 934.06 - Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications; exception
Fla. Stat. § 934.06 Cited 71 times
Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The prohibition of use as evidence provided
Section 637.7 - Unlawful use of electronic tracking device
Cal. Pen. Code § 637.7 Cited 26 times 9 Legal Analyses
(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person. (b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle. (c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency. (d) As used in this section, "electronic tracking device" means any device attached
Section 803-42 - Interception, access, and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, use of pen register, trap and trace device, and mobile tracking device prohibited
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 Cited 20 times 1 Legal Analyses
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, any person who: (1) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication when: (A) Such a device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits
Section 637 - Unlawful disclosure of contents of telegraphic or telephonic message
Cal. Pen. Code § 637 Cited 18 times 1 Legal Analyses
Every person not a party to a telegraphic or telephonic communication who willfully discloses the contents of a telegraphic or telephonic message, or any part thereof, addressed to another person, without the permission of that person, unless directed so to do by the lawful order of a court, is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment
Section 934.42 - Mobile tracking device authorization
Fla. Stat. § 934.42 Cited 13 times
(1) An investigative or law enforcement officer may make application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a mobile tracking device. (2) An application under subsection (1) of this section must include: (a) A statement of the identity of the applicant and the identity of the law enforcement agency conducting the investigation. (b) A certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal
Section 17-30-140 - Mobile tracking devices; contents of application for order authorizing use; standards for installation and monitoring; definition
S.C. Code § 17-30-140 Cited 10 times
(A) The Attorney General or any solicitor may make application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a mobile tracking device by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division or any law enforcement entity of a political subdivision of this State. (B) An application under subsection (A) of this section must include: (1) a statement of the identity of the applicant; (2) a certification by the applicant that probable cause exists to believe

In the Matter of Michael A. Cunningham, Appellant,v.New York State Department of Labor, Respondent.

53 Cited authorities

Holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by public-school officials, establishing the standard for finding a violation, but concluding that the claim at issue failed

Holding that requiring a warrant for government employers’ work-related searches of employees’ workspaces "would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business and would be unreasonable"

Holding that the police department's warrantless search of a police officer's pager was reasonable because it was not excessive in scope and was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose

Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

Holding use of GPS device to track suspect for 65 days was search

Holding that clearly established law did not put defendants on notice that a direct order "with no attendant threat to . . . employment" would invalidate consent

Holding that using a tracking device without a warrant or obviating exigency violates the state constitution

Holding claim related to government's retention of property after seizure raised due process rather than unreasonable seizure claim

Applying exclusionary rule to administrative proceedings before liquor authority with respect to imposition of penalties on license holders

Characterizing Article 78 proceeding as a “special proceeding” and specifying where such a proceeding may be “brought”

Providing that covered employee "shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty provided in this section except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges pursuant to this section."

Stating that "law enforcement may not enter the premises where the child or children are believed to be present without a search warrant or another constitutional basis for such entry"