Privacy Law Blog : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Proskauer Rose Law Firm : CAN-SPAM, FCRA, FACTA

On January 18, 2011, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell announced a settlement with HealthNet, Inc. and Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. over allegations that the company violated the state’s data breach notification law when the company waited over six months to notify state residents of the loss of a portable hard drive that contained their unencrypted personal information. The Attorney General’s settlement, the first under Vermont’s Security Breach Notice Act, demonstrates that, in the opinion of the Vermont Attorney General, even in the frozen North a six-month gap between the discovery of a breach and notice to individuals cannot be reconciled with the Act’s requirement to notify individuals “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 19, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government has broad latitude to conduct background checks on contractors who work at government facilities. Assuming, without deciding, that two parts of a standard government employment background investigation implicated a constitutional privacy interest, the Court held that the government is permitted to ask reasonable employment-related questions that further the government’s interests in managing its internal operations, particularly where the results of such investigations are adequately protected from public disclosure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not prohibit a deputy sheriff from conducting a warrantless, post-arrest search of the text messages of an arrestee. Specifically, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal that the cell phone was “immediately associated with [defendant’s] person at the time of his arrest” and was therefore “properly subjected to a delayed warrantless search.” 

In People v. Diaz, filed on January 3, the Court considered whether the trial court properly denied Diaz’s motion to suppress evidence gathered during a search of his cell phone, which occurred approximately 90 minutes after he was arrested for being a coconspirator in the sale of drugs. Diaz denied knowledge of the sales. A deputy sheriff accessed Diaz’s cell phone, which had been seized from Diaz’s person, and found a coded text message that, based on the deputy’s training and experience, indicated Diaz knew of the transaction.

The California Supreme Court’s ruling hinged on its finding that the cell phone “was an item [of personal property] on [defendant’s] person at the time of his arrest and during the administrative processing at the police station.” People v. Diaz, S1666000, slip op. Majority Op. at 8 (Cal. Jan. 1, 2011). As such, the case was controlled by the United States Supreme Court’s holdings in United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 802-803 (1974) and United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973), in which the High Court affirmed seizures of paint chips from clothing and a cigarette package containing heroin from a coat pocket (respectively).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link