criminality of the behavior. It remains unclear to this court whether the deciding officials at the FBI interpreted its policy to require a criminal finding, such that they could only investigate Doe if his surreptitious videotaping of his sexual liaisons was criminal. The record indicates that the deciding officials at OPR as well as Doe’s own supervisors were under the impression that Doe’s conduct violated state voyeurism laws, and was reasonably subject to criminal prosecution. On appeal, the AJ held that Doe’s conduct likely did not violate the Ohio state voyeurism law, because Doe had not shown the videotapes to any other person and the females who had been taped waived their right to privacy with respect to Doe. See State v. Frost, 92 Ohio App.3d 106, 634 N.E.2d 272, 272 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Yet, while the Board agreed with the AJ’s
holding that when an employee had his duties changed but had no interest created or protected by the constitution or state law in those duties then no liberty interest claim was stated holding the government waived its standing argument when it was put on notice the defendant would claim a privacy interest holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived holding no violation of ohio state voyeurism statute when the privacy interest to be protected had been waived by the females who probably expected to be observed holding statute of limitations is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time but noting other ohio appellate courts have held the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and may be waived if not asserted at the trial level