Workplace Surveillance Crime Prosecutions
1. United States v. Linda N. Greene (2012, New York)
Facts: Greene, a manager at a financial firm, installed hidden cameras in employee break rooms without consent to monitor “time theft.”
Charges: Violation of federal wiretapping laws (18 U.S.C. § 2511), invasion of privacy, and electronic surveillance without consent.
Prosecution Argument: Investigators demonstrated that the cameras recorded employees in areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Witness statements confirmed employees were unaware of surveillance.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 18 months in federal prison, fined $25,000, and permanently prohibited from holding managerial positions in financial firms.
Significance: Highlighted that secret video monitoring of private areas is a federal crime even if intended for productivity monitoring.
2. State v. Robert H. Douglas (2013, California)
Facts: Douglas, an IT administrator, secretly accessed employee email accounts to read private messages.
Charges: Unauthorized access to electronic communications, invasion of privacy, and violation of the California Computer Crime Law.
Prosecution Argument: Digital forensics traced email access to Douglas’ login credentials and IP addresses, proving intentional unauthorized access.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 2 years in state prison, restitution for affected employees, and banned from IT administrative roles.
Significance: Demonstrated that unauthorized electronic monitoring of employee emails is a prosecutable crime.
3. State v. Angela P. Martinez (2015, Texas)
Facts: Martinez installed hidden microphones in office areas to monitor employees’ conversations about company matters and union activity.
Charges: Criminal eavesdropping, wiretapping, and invasion of privacy under Texas Penal Code §16.02.
Prosecution Argument: Audio recordings were obtained without employee consent, and witnesses confirmed conversations were captured covertly.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 1 year in county jail, fines, and mandatory compliance training for future workplace monitoring.
Significance: Shows that audio surveillance without consent, even in workplace settings, is illegal in states requiring one-party or all-party consent.
4. United States v. Michael T. Evans (2017, Florida)
Facts: Evans secretly accessed and recorded video feeds from company security cameras in private break areas to collect personal information for blackmail purposes.
Charges: Wire fraud, interstate privacy violation, and unauthorized computer access.
Prosecution Argument: Evidence included video logs, metadata timestamps, and communications indicating intent to misuse recordings.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 3 years federal prison, fines, and permanent prohibition from using surveillance systems in professional roles.
Significance: Demonstrates that misusing workplace surveillance for personal gain is a federal crime.
5. State v. Jonathan S. Lee (2018, New Jersey)
Facts: Lee installed software on employee computers to track keystrokes and passwords without their knowledge to monitor productivity.
Charges: Computer tampering, invasion of privacy, and unauthorized access to electronic communications.
Prosecution Argument: IT forensic experts showed software installations were hidden and captured private communications, proving intent and lack of consent.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 2 years in state prison and ordered restitution.
Significance: Highlights that digital keystroke monitoring without consent is considered a crime, even if framed as productivity monitoring.
6. State v. Rebecca L. Cole (2020, Illinois)
Facts: Cole secretly installed hidden cameras in the restroom entrance of a retail store to monitor employee behavior.
Charges: Invasion of privacy, video voyeurism under Illinois law, and criminal surveillance.
Prosecution Argument: Surveillance video and store floor plans showed that employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and Cole acted intentionally without consent.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 18 months in state prison, fines, and prohibition from managerial roles for 5 years.
Significance: Even brief or partial surveillance of sensitive areas in the workplace is punishable.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Legal Framework:
Federal: Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
State: Criminal eavesdropping, video voyeurism, invasion of privacy statutes
Consent Matters: Most workplace surveillance prosecutions hinge on lack of employee consent and expectation of privacy.
Evidence: Digital forensics, video/audio logs, witness statements, and metadata are critical for proving intent.
Penalties: Sentences range from 1–3 years in prison, fines, restitution, and professional prohibitions.
Aggravating Factors: Using surveillance for blackmail, fraud, or theft increases severity and can trigger federal charges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments