English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-04-26 05:51:41 · 6 answers · asked by knada242 2 in Politics & Government Law Enforcement & Police

Please provide supporting evidance.

2007-04-26 06:09:47 · update #1

6 answers

You have a very good question with a myriad of possible responses, however, the below should help you understand the restrictions of searches.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the “right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the federal government.” From this restriction, courts have implied a right to privacy.

Private Sector: This right does not apply in the private sector. See, e.g., United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).

Public Sector: The Constitution provides limited protection for government employees. The courts will balance the employees' “legitimate expectations of privacy” against the government employer's need to supervise the workplace and conduct efficient operations. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987). Otherwise reasonable expectations of privacy may be deemed unreasonable where the employer warns employees in advance of the employer’s monitoring. The key is whether “any workplace practices, procedures or regulations” diminish the employee’s belief of privacy. See United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000). For example, an agency’s internet policy advising of periodic electronic audits of computer use “placed employees on notice that they could not reasonably expect that their internet activity would be private.” Id. The government employer's intentional monitoring must be based on a reasonable suspicion that its investigation will uncover work-related misconduct. See O'Connor, 480 U.S. at 726. Otherwise, the “search” must be non-investigatory in nature (i.e., the inadvertent retrieval of information).

There is no expectation of privacy where consent is given.

If in any preemployment agreements you signed a waiver providing the employer the right to search while on his/her premises...you've given consent!

Lastly, if the employer, who owns the property of which you park your vehicle, invites law enforcement upon the property and utilizes the services of a K-9, the law allows for the police to continue a search if the K-9 provides probable cause!

If you have further questions, feel free to email me directly.

2007-04-26 06:14:55 · answer #1 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 1 0

2

2016-08-30 00:11:59 · answer #2 · answered by Landon 3 · 0 0

Get a No Cost Background Check Scan at https://bitly.im/aNKkN

Its a sensible way to start. The site allows you to do a no cost scan simply to find out if any sort of data is in existence. A smaller analysis is done without cost. To get a detailed report its a modest payment.

You may not realize how many good reasons there are to try and find out more about the people around you. After all, whether you're talking about new friends, employees, doctors, caretakers for elderly family members, or even significant others, you, as a citizen, have a right to know whether the people you surround yourself with are who they say they are. This goes double in any situation that involves your children, which not only includes teachers and babysitters, but also scout masters, little league coaches and others. Bottom line, if you want to find out more about someone, you should perform a background check.

2016-05-20 08:17:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Get the number for a local Legal Aid office and call to ask them. With so many laws changed, I don't know if this action is legal or illegal. It's their property but it's your vehicle...

2007-04-26 05:57:34 · answer #4 · answered by beez 7 · 0 0

I would check your company handbook.

If nothing there, I would tell them you can't search my vehicle. Police have to have probable cause or a warrant.

If it comes to it, park off their lot.

If it's a company vehicle - then they can.

2007-04-26 06:02:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They have no right to do that..

It is breaking and entering bottom line..

2007-04-26 06:03:36 · answer #6 · answered by tiny b 3 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers