In the case of O'Connor et al. v. Ortega, Dr. Magno Ortega, a state hospital employee in California was subjected to an office search by his employer while he was on administrative leave during an investigation into alleged misconduct. During this search, personal items were seized from his desk and filing cabinets which led him to file a lawsuit claiming that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated as there had been no warrant for the search nor any suspicion of criminal activity on his part. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of O’Connor et al., stating that public employees' offices are covered under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures but also acknowledging that employers have legitimate needs to enter those spaces for non-investigatory work-related purposes or investigations into workplace misconduct. However, it did not establish clear guidelines about when such searches become "unreasonable" - leaving lower courts with significant discretion over how they interpret what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy within public workplaces.

In the dissenting opinion for O'CONNOR et al. v. ORTEGA, Justice Scalia argued that public employees should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their offices and workspaces, similar to citizens in their homes or personal effects. He disagreed with the majority's view that employers had broad discretion to conduct searches without warrants or probable cause due to operational realities of the workplace. Instead, he believed this approach was inconsistent with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that exceptions allowing warrantless searches should be limited and specific rather than broadly defined by an employer’s needs or circumstances at hand.