Michael Smyth's Expectation Of Privacy

MICHAEL A. SMYTH v. THE PILLSBURY COMPANY

United States District Court, 1996 914 F. Supp. 97

How does Judge Weiner explain why Michael Smyth lost any “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his e-mail comments? According to the Cornell University Law School, expectation of privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment and it safeguards people from warrantless investigations of places, appropriations of persons or objects in which they have a particular expectation of privacy that is thought reasonable. However, this expectation is not absolute, but on a case-by case basis. In other words, reasonably expectation of privacy means that someone who compromises another’s interests in keeping his/her matters from being known can be held liable

Westin identified four basic functions of privacy that we as individuals constantly perform; personal autonomy, emotional release, self-evaluation, and limited and protected communication.

The first denotes the desire of individuals to avoid being manipulated or controlled entirely by others. Something that could be considered as self-determination of self-governance and it refers first to the “ultimate secrets” of each individual; their fears, hopes and prayers. Then, to the “intimate secrets;” those that could be willingly share with selected people and that continues until reaching that zone of casual communication that is open to everyone. The second one is emotional release, it refers to the “times-off” we as individuals designated to leave the routine of daily life. He mentioned that “no individual can play indefinitely, without relief, the variety of roles that life demands.” Conferring to The Home of Vibrational Health Website, emotions control our thinking, conduct and actions and can affect our physical bodies as much as our body affects your feelings and thinking. This is why Westin suggested this act as part of our privacy. The third factors is self-evaluation, the action of looking at your progress, development, and learning to determine what has improved and what areas still need improvement. It also refers to the action of stop and raise our consciences and meditate about our acts. This

WALMART STORES, INC.

N.Y. App. Div., 1995 621 N.Y.S.2d 158

The judges in this case—both majority and dissenting—are engaging in what is called statutory construction; they are determining the outcome of the case by trying to understand the meaning of the law passed by New York’s legislature. Note the differences between them. One gives the statute a “broad” reading, the other gives it a “narrow” one.

Which is which? In this case, Justice Mercure who headed the majority engaged in a “broad” interpretation of the law, while the dissenting held by Justice Yesawich utilized a more “narrow” interpretation.

What tools do the two judges use to interpret the law?

They both used the definition of “recreational activities” recorded below:

… any lawful, leisure-time activity, for which the employee receives no compensation and which is generally engaged in for recreational purposes, including but not limited to sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading, and the viewing of television, movies, and similar