I'm interested to see how this plays out.

On one hand, anyone can hire a private investigator. On the other hand, I had thought electronic monitoring like the GPS tracking described here requires court approval.

In any case, this sounds like a witch-hunt. Covert GPS tracking, accessing E-ZPass data and having the guy followed? For skipping out on what doesn't even amount to two days work? Either they were just waiting for him to screw up in some way or it's like Capone, they could only get rid of him on a technicality.

From that list, I think the only thing they would not need a warrant for is having him followed.

You are incorrect. E-ZPass records can be obtained with a subpoena which does not require judicial approval like a warrant does. That's true of pretty much any business records (bank records, toll records on your phone, E-ZPass, etc.). Covert GPS tracking, at least from a law enforcement standpoint, is more of a grey area as far as what is required because it varies from area to area. Some areas allow it with no legal process and some require a court order but I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which requires a warrant to conduct GPS surveillance on a vehicle.

At any rate, it doesn't sound like this guy was the subject of any law enforcement action; rather his employer, the DOL, just wanted to have a legit reason to fire the guy and took some steps to see whether their suspicions were true before pulling the trigger. I doubt this guy will prevail in his lawsuit, but we shall see...

"But is it okay for a boss (any boss, government or no) to slap a GPS on your personal car and not tell you about it?"

Of course its ok! They're doing it, aren't they??

I'm curious: Did they get a warrant to place a GPS tracker on his car or for his private EZ Pass records?
If not, he may have a case.

I'm no expert on the matter, but warrants have to do with law enforcement's right to make arrests or obtain evidence for use in a criminal proceeding. If they don't have a warrant, then the arrest or evidence is invalid.

We are talking about a state agency, but not an arrest or evidence for use in a criminal trial. There may be some invasion of privacy (if it was a personal car), but that doesn't mean they can't use what they know as a fact as a basis to fire him.

The fact that they have access to his easy pass records makes it seem like they pay for his easy pass, which means they can check those records all they want.

I'm with you. If they (Gov't agents) did all this without a warrant, they're screwed.

I think you misread what I said. Warrants are for obtaining evidence for criminal proceedings or making arrests. Neither of which apply here.

If a public employee put a GPS tracker on his employee's car to get evidence, then they can use that evidence as a way to prove that they didn't fire for discriminatory reasons, or that he wasn't doing his job, etc.

In civil matters you don't usually talk about keeping evidence out of a case because it was obtained by someone illegally. This wasn't done by the cops, it was done by someone's boss. So if the fired employee sues for invasion of privacy then he may have a case.

Ok, but since this was a Gov't agency, might the same rules apply?

I maybe wrong (Shocking as that would be, I know), but regardless of law enforcement or not, don't the same rules apply? A cop can't gather evidence and then say, it's for a civil case, right?

Any one can gather any evidence they want. They might break the law in the process. In this case it sounds like invasion of privacy.

However, warrants are issued by judges to law enforcement officers to allow them to perform some sort of search, wire tap, etc., or arrest someone suspected of a crime. Whether a warrant was issued is an issue that comes into play when a criminal court is determining whether evidence gathered by law enforcement can be admitted to build a case against the criminal defendant, or whether a criminal defendant was lawfully detained.

The case described in this article is a civil case, where just about any evidence can be admitted, no matter how it was obtained. The constitutional basis for warrants in the criminal context does not apply to civil cases.

So in deciding whether it was proper to fire this guy, the court will consider the GPS information. However, that doesn't mean that the employee can't sue the agency or his former boss for invasion of privacy.

A judge is supposed to issue a warrant because a crime might be committed (to a reasonable mind). If this fellow was not working from a regular office and his bosses want to keep tabs on him, it doesn't sound like any crime took place. So, it doesn't seem there was ever a valid, legal reason for any warrants.

Assuming they had a warrant, suppose they told a judge he was committing fraud?

That would be "probable cause" to some judges.