My company is getting sued. Wtf.
Banned
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,825
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Kremlin,Jun 29 2010, 04:54 PM
Quite the opposite. The reasonable suspicion standard has been upheld for searches of school lockers, desks, company vehicles, company lockers, company offices, etc.
There's no expectation of privacy in a company owned locker unless there is some contract indicating as such.
There's no expectation of privacy in a company owned locker unless there is some contract indicating as such.
The FOURTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." This provision is made applicable to the states through the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
The Supreme Court has stated that the BILL OF RIGHTS (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) is applicable to children, even in a classroom setting. To paraphrase the Court in Tinker, students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates. Does the Tinker ruling suggest that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches extends to public schools? Must a principal obtain a warrant before searching students or their lockers? Are principals to be held to the "probable cause" standard that is generally required by the Fourth Amendment? These are important questions because evidence of wrongdoing that is obtained in an illegal search is generally inadmissible; that is, it must be excluded from consideration—at trial. The issue of admissibility of evidence is especially critical when school officials are searching for drugs, alcohol, or weapons.
The Supreme Court has stated that the BILL OF RIGHTS (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) is applicable to children, even in a classroom setting. To paraphrase the Court in Tinker, students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates. Does the Tinker ruling suggest that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches extends to public schools? Must a principal obtain a warrant before searching students or their lockers? Are principals to be held to the "probable cause" standard that is generally required by the Fourth Amendment? These are important questions because evidence of wrongdoing that is obtained in an illegal search is generally inadmissible; that is, it must be excluded from consideration—at trial. The issue of admissibility of evidence is especially critical when school officials are searching for drugs, alcohol, or weapons.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
From: Cayce, SC
As far as getting rid of employees that you have issues with, there's always a way. It doesn't really matter what the laws are in the area. We use to just wait until they were late. Even if they walk in 2 mins late, if it was someone we were trying to get rid of late is late. You can always find something wrong with the way people are doing their job.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally Posted by beanseff,Jun 29 2010, 08:25 PM
unfortunately, they do have a leg to stand on, something similar happened at a HELIPORT i used to leave from, albeit it wasn't controlled by customs or homeland security, it was just a parking lot leased by a contract comany for us to park our vehicles, but anyway there were sighs clearly posted:
EVERY VEHICLE SUBJECT TO SEARCH
NO FIREARMS
NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
NO ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES
there was an accident caused by a fool showing off his truck, the company man found a half pint of vodka in his truck still sealed, they fired him, he sued and he won
again there was an article in the company handbook about shit like that
The difference in your case and this one is that the empoyees' effects were IN company property (a locker) that was GIVEN them to BORROW while they were an employee. As such, the company searched its own property, not someone else's.
My desk at work is subject to search as it is company property. Same thing goes for my computer. It is company property that I am using with their permission. It doesn't matter if I "secure" it or my belongings in it; the company can still search my desk, even if it's locked.
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 36,017
Likes: 226
From: Queen City, NC
Legal precedent is that companies have the right to search their property and monitor your activity while using their property and resources, so these cases won't be won. Extremely frivolous and a great way to blackball yourself for future employment opportunities, but of course, they will probably sue when they don't get raises next.
Firing someone because you found an unopened bottle of vodka is completely different.
Firing someone because you found an unopened bottle of vodka is completely different.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
From: Central Wisconsin
Love threads like these where the community is actually have a constructive argument.
There are three possible outcomes really.
1. The company has a statement in their employment contracts that state "Any and all company property can/will/may be searched at any time as deemed necessary by Management" or something along those lines.
2. The company will most likely win in a court because Company property was lost, on company property. They searched IN company property. I'm not a lawyer but even my dim witting sister knows that this isnt "wrong" of a company to do. Years ago when I was employed at walmart, the lockers they provided were searched numerous times. Either for thefts, of specific employee lockers if there was an accident on work (drugs/alcohol).
3. The company loses because those employees paid an outrageous amount of money for a lawyer who knows how to destroy our judicial system. Doubt it can be done, but hey, look at OJ.
As for the dude getting fired over the vodka and winning....That was his personal property in a different companies garage. The garage owners had no legal rights in the matter as he was not their employee. Additionally the bottle was un-opened. Dont executives got common sense anymore?
There are three possible outcomes really.
1. The company has a statement in their employment contracts that state "Any and all company property can/will/may be searched at any time as deemed necessary by Management" or something along those lines.
2. The company will most likely win in a court because Company property was lost, on company property. They searched IN company property. I'm not a lawyer but even my dim witting sister knows that this isnt "wrong" of a company to do. Years ago when I was employed at walmart, the lockers they provided were searched numerous times. Either for thefts, of specific employee lockers if there was an accident on work (drugs/alcohol).
3. The company loses because those employees paid an outrageous amount of money for a lawyer who knows how to destroy our judicial system. Doubt it can be done, but hey, look at OJ.
As for the dude getting fired over the vodka and winning....That was his personal property in a different companies garage. The garage owners had no legal rights in the matter as he was not their employee. Additionally the bottle was un-opened. Dont executives got common sense anymore?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Steponme,Jun 29 2010, 09:36 PM
It depends on the reasonable circumstance, but only with probably cause; a lost cell phone does NOT fall into such category.
In many criminal cases, evidence from unlawful searches has been inadmissible, thus resulting in hung jury and even dismissal.
In many criminal cases, evidence from unlawful searches has been inadmissible, thus resulting in hung jury and even dismissal.
This is a company searching its own property. Hence it is not an unlawful search.
The fourth amendment does not apply here, they can look in the locker. It's been upheld before that stolen property in a school can result in full search of all students' lockers.
There's a different question of "can they look INSIDE purses and bags inside the locker?" I don't know the answer to this question.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post