N.H. psychiatrist criticizes VA medical center office search
Toolbox
By MARK DAVIS VALLEY NEWS - Published: November 23, 2009
WHITE RIVER JUNCTION — Government investigators, acting without a warrant, had no right to search the office of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center psychiatrist who now faces criminal and civil charges, the psychiatrist's lawyers argue in a recent court filing.
Lawyers for William Weeks of Lyme, N.H., charged with mismanaging contracts between the VA and Dartmouth College, said that criminal investigators improperly justified their search of Weeks' office by citing regulations that are intended to allow only VA higher-ups, not law enforcement officials, to monitor workplaces.
"What happened to Dr. Weeks should not have happened to anyone," Weeks' Burlington attorney, Norman Williams, wrote in a recent court filing. "The Supreme Court and Second Circuit have both made clear that a law enforcement agent may not conduct a criminal search of an individual's office without a warrant."
The arguments from Weeks' lawyers, contained in a recent filing in U.S. District Court, are the latest salvo in a trio of lawsuits that have focused on issues of workplace privacy.
In May, federal prosecutors accused Weeks, who supervised contracts at the hospital and the college, of improperly participating in five fixed-price contracts between the institutions.
Prosecutors say Weeks acted as supervisor of the contracts at both institutions. In one instance, prosecutors say, he arranged for Dartmouth College to receive a $1.1 million contract with the VA, and then, working for Dartmouth, completed the work for far less money. The leftover money, more than $500,000, then went into Weeks' personal account at Dartmouth.
Weeks, who denies all allegations, has sued the government, accusing investigators of collecting evidence without a warrant and seeking unspecified damages. Agents inspected his office and made a copy of his computer hard drive.
After learning of the government's investigation, Weeks sought professional help and twice attempted suicide, according to court filings.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather Ross has argued that Weeks, as a government employee, had agreed to departmental regulations that allowed such searches. VA policy states that employees do not have a right to privacy while using any government equipment and, simply by using government equipment, give their consent to disclosing information on the equipment to "authorized officials."
Additionally, Weeks' computer had a banner that appeared on screen every time he logged on saying that the computer could be inspected at any time.
"VA directives, warnings placed on Weeks' VA computer, and agreements that Weeks signed made it abundantly clear that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his VA office or computer," Ross in a previous motion. Ross could not be reached for comment yesterday.
But Williams argues those warnings are irrelevant. The warnings allow VA inspectors and higher-ups to look into internal workplace misconduct, but not criminal activity.
Federal laws guaranteeing privacy supersede the internal VA regulations, Williams argue, and require that authorities building a criminal case first obtain a search warrant.
Earlier this year, Weeks was the subject of internal VA investigation.
But by the time an agent from the VA's Office of the Inspector General searched Weeks' office, the internal investigation had ended, Williams argued, and the agent was working instead on a criminal investigation led by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Under those circumstances, his lawyer says, they had no right to even step into Week's office to access the computer. "A warrantless search as part of a criminal investigation is by definition unreasonable," Williams wrote.
Moreover, as a doctor who held sensitive information about patients, Weeks had every right to expect privacy in his office, Williams argued.
36