had an interest in fully investigating Simons’ misconduct, even if the misconduct was criminal. We agree. As it does not appear from the record that FBIS utilized the hard drive for internal investigatory purposes before turning it over to the criminal investigator at OIG, we will assume that the dominant purposes of the warrantless search of Simons’ office was to acquire evidence of criminal activity, which had been committed at FBIS using FBIS equipment. Nevertheless, the search remains within the O’Connor exception to the warrant requirement; FBIS did not lose its special need for “the efficient and proper operation of the workplace,” id., merely because the evidence obtained was evidence of a crime. Cf. New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 716, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 186 F.3d 469,
recognizing the transition of the administrative hearing process from the division of motor vehicles to the office of administrative hearings holding that the discovery of evidence of crimes in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection does not render that search illegal or the administrative scheme suspect holding for an administrative search to be constitutional under the fourth amendment the subject of the search must be afforded an opportunity to obtain precompliance review before a neutral decisionmaker which requirement would be satisfied by an administrative subpoena holding the lumpsum payment of a severance benefit to be evidence of lack of an administrative scheme holding the payment of benefits at the occurrence of a single event an indicium of lack of an administrative scheme