UC lawyers seek dismissal of lawsuit alleging spying at campus police station

Lawyers representing University of California officials have asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges top brass at the UC Irvine Police Department placed cameras and high-powered microphones at the agency’s headquarters to spy on employees and the public.

In a court filing Friday, the lawyers argued in part that the suit failed to show that police employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy, even though some conversations allegedly were recorded in hallways, offices and restrooms at the campus police station.

The response arrived about three months after the union representing campus police officers filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the UC Board of Regents, the UCI Police Department and its chief and assistant chief of participating in an “illegal recording scheme.”

The Federated University Police Officers Assn.’s complaint also names Johnson Controls Inc., the company that installed the recording gear, which the suit says is sensitive enough to pick up conversations through walls.

Though the union says the surveillance system captured talk in “non-public” areas, lawyers for the UC system argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out because it didn’t explain why workers expected privacy in and around the station.

“The reasonableness of an employee’s expectation of privacy is dependent on the operational realities of the specific workplace,” their filing states.

David Mastagni, a lawyer for the union, called that assertion “ludicrous.”

“If you and I are walking down the sidewalk in the middle of town, we have no expectation of privacy if we’re conversing?” he said.

Though Mastagni said the surveillance was no different from surreptitiously recording a phone call, the UC lawyers argued that the lawsuit failed to show that Police Department and university officials were intentionally eavesdropping.

“Although plaintiffs elsewhere plead that confidential conversations were audio recorded, nowhere does the complaint plead facts to establish that defendants installed the recording system with the intent to record conversations in locations where plaintiffs may reasonably have had an expectation of privacy,” the response stated.

The microphones and cameras were installed as part of an upgrade of the UCI police dispatch center, the lawyers said.

Mastagni shot back that someone who, for instance, runs a stop sign would deserve a ticket regardless of whether he intended to break the law.

He also noted an allegation in the lawsuit that police officials deleted portions of tapes recorded around the station.

“They wouldn’t have deleted them if it was nothing,” Mastagni said.

A lawyer for the defendants did not return a call seeking comment Tuesday.

Johnson Controls last month asked for dismissal of the lawsuit on similar grounds, with an added argument that the company can’t be held liable for putting in the equipment.

According to the lawsuit, UCI Police Department employees discovered the surveillance system in December 2013 but don’t know how long it had been in place or if it is still recording.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction to stop the surveillance.