I’m aware of a department who offers a stipend for sworn employees who are regularly subject to on-call status. The stipend is offered in lieu of having a government issued phone and thus having to carry two phones (one personal and one work) during on-call status. Allegedly it offsets a portion of the cost of the employee’s personal phone bill since he/she is mandated to be available by phone during those on-call periods. When the topic of subpoenas for work related calls, texts, emails, etc came up the command staff offered assurances that employees would have the opportunity to redact any personal data before release. Do you agree this practice is fraught with potential problems and should be avoided? I would think that, because the government is essentially paying the bill, it may open the door for a potential seizure of the device itself thus allowing whomever the court may appoint to analyze both personal and work data to determine what portion of that data is subject to a subpoena.
I’m aware of a department who offers a stipend for sworn employees who are regularly subject to on-call status. The stipend is offered in lieu of having a government issued phone and thus having to carry two phones (one personal and one work) during on-call status. Allegedly it offsets a portion of the cost of the employee’s personal phone bill since he/she is mandated to be available by phone during those on-call periods. When the topic of subpoenas for work related calls, texts, emails, etc came up the command staff offered assurances that employees would have the opportunity to redact any personal data before release. Do you agree this practice is fraught with potential problems and should be avoided? I would think that, because the government is essentially paying the bill, it may open the door for a potential seizure of the device itself thus allowing whomever the court may appoint to analyze both personal and work data to determine what portion of that data is subject to a subpoena.