under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action. Where it has been possible to characterize that private interest (perhaps in oversimplication) as. a mere privilege subject to the Executive’s plenary power, it has traditionally been held that notice and hearing are not constitutionally required . . . Moreover, the governmental function operating here was not the power to regulate or license, as lawmaker, an entire trade or profession, or to control an entire branch of private business, but, rather, as proprietor, to manage the internal operation of an important federal military establishment.” Id. at 895-96, 81 S. Ct. at 1148-49 (<HOLDING>) (footnote and citations omitted). Certain
holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that civilian employee of navy weapons plant lacked legitimate expectation of privacy in private office when office was regularly searched in employees absence employee was aware that such searches occurred and employee had participated in searches of coworkers offices holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement holding eommander of naval institution could summarily withdraw permission of civilian employee to enter base for security reasons holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority