Does anyone know, is this legal?...
- Thread starter Low Key
- Start date
"a private entity searching a private vehicle is a violation of your right to privacy."
Yes and No.
Lets look at it this way, does your employer have a right to check the car in his lot? No. You also do not have a right to work there and can be asked to leave if you refuse.
Now, does an employer have a right to check your car on the public street? Also No. Does he have a right to ask you to fire you though for this, doubtfull.
The question is what is your property and what is theirs. Where do their property right end and yours begin. I would contest that a personal conveyence that may be locked closed by the owne is private property. It is considerred such by the police. I also think that while it is legal for the employer to check the vehicle in their lot, with your permision, their right to make this a condition of your employment is NOT inviolate.
There are many things they cannot fire you for. You cannot be fired for being handicapped, a minority, part of a religious group, or gay. The fact that they cannot do this establishes that their "property right" is not inviolate. The way to solve the problem is perfectly laid out in our constitution. Legislate it. This is what is going on in OK. People there did not like what happenned so they passed a law that is now being challenged. Personally I think it should be taken to the next level in that everything under your clothes should be inviolate but I will settle for the cars.
In the end, if the OK law stands, the property owners do have a final recourse to keep weapons off the property. They can refuse all parking on their grounds to everyone. When you open your property to the public you automatically relax some of your property rights.
Yes and No.
Lets look at it this way, does your employer have a right to check the car in his lot? No. You also do not have a right to work there and can be asked to leave if you refuse.
Now, does an employer have a right to check your car on the public street? Also No. Does he have a right to ask you to fire you though for this, doubtfull.
The question is what is your property and what is theirs. Where do their property right end and yours begin. I would contest that a personal conveyence that may be locked closed by the owne is private property. It is considerred such by the police. I also think that while it is legal for the employer to check the vehicle in their lot, with your permision, their right to make this a condition of your employment is NOT inviolate.
There are many things they cannot fire you for. You cannot be fired for being handicapped, a minority, part of a religious group, or gay. The fact that they cannot do this establishes that their "property right" is not inviolate. The way to solve the problem is perfectly laid out in our constitution. Legislate it. This is what is going on in OK. People there did not like what happenned so they passed a law that is now being challenged. Personally I think it should be taken to the next level in that everything under your clothes should be inviolate but I will settle for the cars.
In the end, if the OK law stands, the property owners do have a final recourse to keep weapons off the property. They can refuse all parking on their grounds to everyone. When you open your property to the public you automatically relax some of your property rights.
For those who do not believe that a right to privacy exists outside of gov't entities, check your disbelief at the door.
Banks, businesses, hospitals, etc CAN NOT disseminate your private information without your permission. Name and address are not private info but your B-day, SSI #, bank acct info, et ARE private).
For that matter, your neighbor can't just waltz into your house and "search" it either. It's called trespass and that applies to your employer too when it comes to your car (unless your vehicle is used for company business). You have a right to privacy of your person that also applies to non-govt' entities. Bathrooms, changing rooms, etc are not allowed to have cameras in them because such would intrude on the individuals' rights to privacy.
The right to privacy is not just a Federal Constitutional right. It's a right that belongs to individuals and is enforceable against individuals and businesses.
Banks, businesses, hospitals, etc CAN NOT disseminate your private information without your permission. Name and address are not private info but your B-day, SSI #, bank acct info, et ARE private).
For that matter, your neighbor can't just waltz into your house and "search" it either. It's called trespass and that applies to your employer too when it comes to your car (unless your vehicle is used for company business). You have a right to privacy of your person that also applies to non-govt' entities. Bathrooms, changing rooms, etc are not allowed to have cameras in them because such would intrude on the individuals' rights to privacy.
The right to privacy is not just a Federal Constitutional right. It's a right that belongs to individuals and is enforceable against individuals and businesses.
Not the same thing. Don't compare apples to beans.
You are wrong. This is the way it should be, but you are still wrong. As long as you volunteer to remain on private property you volunteer to surrender this right to them. I truely hope that the OK challenge gets this overturned, but as of right now it is completely legal to search anything, and anyone that enters into, or onto a private establishment, so long as they are not restrained, or have their freedom to leave restricted in anyway.
If you come to my house I have every right to ask you to submit to a search, or to leave. As long as I don't restrain you I have broken no laws. This is not the same as me comming to your house, and forcing you to submit to a search. By forcing you to submit outside of my private property I have violated your right of freedom, commited false arrest, and unlawful detention. On overly zealous DA can even get a charge of kidnapping.
And it doesnt apply in this example. An employer - employee relationship is entirely different than the relationships cited.
It is what it is, unless you are civil service you work at the discretion of the employer. The only "leg" to stand on is if the rules are not enforced fairly across the board. If your car is searched multiple times while no on else's is then you may have grounds for a complaint to your state's labor relations board or civil rights commission.
It is what it is, unless you are civil service you work at the discretion of the employer. The only "leg" to stand on is if the rules are not enforced fairly across the board. If your car is searched multiple times while no on else's is then you may have grounds for a complaint to your state's labor relations board or civil rights commission.
If something were to occur on that property, such as an assault on your person, and you were able to prove that you would have had enough time to arm yourself legally, then the avenue would be open to sue the company. It's a two-edged sword here. In states that allow CCW, the company, by refusing you the right granted under the law, becomes responsible when illegal acts are performed on that property.
No. You wouldn't be able to sue, then, because the company could show that you knew the policy and continued to agree to work there under that policy. You voluntarily gave up the right when you said, "Okay, I'll still work here even though I knew the policy."
They'll say, "If you thought it was going to put you at such a disadvantage if you were to be attacked, it was your responsibility to not agree to work under those conditions. You could have chosen to leave, but you didn't."
I hate it, but that's the fact.
-blackmind
They'll say, "If you thought it was going to put you at such a disadvantage if you were to be attacked, it was your responsibility to not agree to work under those conditions. You could have chosen to leave, but you didn't."
I hate it, but that's the fact.
-blackmind
That's what it comes down to. They can't be arbitrary about things since that could be discrimination. So you can expect most companies to have written policies on things like this. And you signed something when they hired you that said you agree to follow their rules. If their rules say they can search your car and you signed the form, then they can search your car!
It usually even becomes more obvious than this. I see little signs all over the place at controlled access points etc. that say, "all vehicles and packages within this area are subject to search." You can't just drive by those signs every day and pretend they don't exist!
And you betcha that I hope Oklahoma sets some precedent in this area. OK actually passed a law that says a company _can't_ bar an employee from having a gun in their locked car. But then it went to court and it has been there ever since. I keep hoping.....
Gregg
My company's manual for employees says the following under the General Rules section:
"The purpose of these rules and regulations is not to restrict the rights of any employee, but to define and protect those rights."
What a load of crap.
How can you "define" what a person's rights are without also, by so doing, restrict them? Any time you "define" a set of rights, you are ruling out anything that is not included, yes?
I don't see how a list of things I am told I am not allowed to do in any way "protects" any of my rights.
Our manual is written poorly. It makes a list under "General Rules" that follows an intro paragraph. But prior to the list, it does NOT say anything like "The following are prohibited:"
So when it says, "Possession of firearms, explosives or other weapons on company property without specific authorization," it does so NOT in the context of "the following is prohibited." That sentence fragment simply stands on its own! So you can ask, "Possession of firearms... without specific authorization...um, what?"
And even if it were worded well, one could always say, "I have 'specific authorization' for this firearm -- the STATE has LICENSED ME, SPECIFICALLY, to carry it. You didn't say, 'specific authorization from the company.' "
Our manual has left a LOT of wiggle room to get all lawyery on them.
-blackmind
"The purpose of these rules and regulations is not to restrict the rights of any employee, but to define and protect those rights."
What a load of crap.
How can you "define" what a person's rights are without also, by so doing, restrict them? Any time you "define" a set of rights, you are ruling out anything that is not included, yes?
I don't see how a list of things I am told I am not allowed to do in any way "protects" any of my rights.
Our manual is written poorly. It makes a list under "General Rules" that follows an intro paragraph. But prior to the list, it does NOT say anything like "The following are prohibited:"
So when it says, "Possession of firearms, explosives or other weapons on company property without specific authorization," it does so NOT in the context of "the following is prohibited." That sentence fragment simply stands on its own! So you can ask, "Possession of firearms... without specific authorization...um, what?"
And even if it were worded well, one could always say, "I have 'specific authorization' for this firearm -- the STATE has LICENSED ME, SPECIFICALLY, to carry it. You didn't say, 'specific authorization from the company.' "
Our manual has left a LOT of wiggle room to get all lawyery on them.
-blackmind
"Banks, businesses, hospitals, etc CAN NOT disseminate your private information without your permission. Name and address are not private info but your B-day, SSI #, bank acct info, et ARE private)."
I can't speak for the banks and businesses, but hospitals, doctors offices, clinics etc can not even acknowledge that you are there or have ever been there. I can't even talk about a patient to another nurse in the hallway. The level of security is very tight in health care settings these days. Would I let my employer seach my vehicle? He can search all he wants from the outside with the windows up. What he can see without entry is the only public domain I will allow. I have worked at government (State and Federal) hospital facilities that had search policies posted but their parking lots were fenced off and guarded. I don't see how a private entity can enact a policy like this unless he has made the same provisions.
I can't speak for the banks and businesses, but hospitals, doctors offices, clinics etc can not even acknowledge that you are there or have ever been there. I can't even talk about a patient to another nurse in the hallway. The level of security is very tight in health care settings these days. Would I let my employer seach my vehicle? He can search all he wants from the outside with the windows up. What he can see without entry is the only public domain I will allow. I have worked at government (State and Federal) hospital facilities that had search policies posted but their parking lots were fenced off and guarded. I don't see how a private entity can enact a policy like this unless he has made the same provisions.
Would the question be different if the company wanted to rummage through your bedroom, or your attic, as a condition of your employment? Your vehicle is your private property, just because it's mobile doesn't mean it's somehow different or special.
There's a bill coming up in New Hampshire to parallel Oklahoma's.
There's a bill coming up in New Hampshire to parallel Oklahoma's.
Look, I'm vehemently opposed to these searches,
but that doesn't make your analogy of bedrooms: cars viable. It's not.
You can't bring your bedroom to work with you. It does not have the potential to contain something on your employer's property that your employer does not want people to have there. These are apples, those are oranges.
I am NOT defending the companies -- I think that any company that conducts searches of vehicles on the premises deserves to be abandoned by its workforce to the point that it disincorporates as a consequence. But the legal standing does seem to favor the company.
-blackmind
but that doesn't make your analogy of bedrooms: cars viable. It's not.
You can't bring your bedroom to work with you. It does not have the potential to contain something on your employer's property that your employer does not want people to have there. These are apples, those are oranges.
I am NOT defending the companies -- I think that any company that conducts searches of vehicles on the premises deserves to be abandoned by its workforce to the point that it disincorporates as a consequence. But the legal standing does seem to favor the company.
-blackmind
Garand Illusion
New member
is there any parking on the street near your work? If your vehicle is off the premises, this whole thing becomes a non-issue.
Not that it's illegal to park on the public street that runs by where I work, but it just isn't possible, there are 2 lanes and no shoulder so I have to park in the company parking lot. Now there is actually some wiggle room on this because we are in a rented building, shared by another company which uses the same parking lot (it could be disputed as to whether this is actually company property or not). This other operation routinely ships and recieves firearms because that is part of their business, they have firearms in the building all the time. Now my companys policy states that there are "no firearms allowed on company property" so I can't carry even though I am licensed to do so. 
But I see guys from the other operation walk past me, not 20 feet away, with a shotgun or rifle or handgun and it kind of ticks me off that we are in the same building and they can carry whatever whenever right out in the open, but I am disallowed by company policy. I do realize that they do work for a different operation and have different company policy, but it seems unfair to me.
Supposedly, the no firearms policy is for my protection, BS, I think it's more of a control issue with the company I work for. To be honest I don't feel unsafe at work, but to me this is an issue of losing the rights afforded me by the constitution. As previously mentioned in this thread, where does the company's property end? The front door? The parking lot? There was a rumor a couple of years back that they went to an employees house and demanded to search it for stolen materials, no police, no warrant, just company guys demanding to search the employees home. Now I know what rumors are worth, which is nothing, but it makes you think.
I am an NRA member and I know about what is going on in OK and that situation is what got me to thinking about this subject seriously. I was hired several years back and have never signed any papers agreeing that search of a vehicle was a condition of employment, so when vehicle search was mentioned offhand (over a year ago) I thought "yeah right they have no grounds for that, they're just running a bluff", but are they? I've seen corporate America get more arrogant and controlling by the year, money talks. If it came down to the wire, I'd walk and get a good lawyer and use the wiggle room I have to push my side of the story. The NRA would be the first group to know my name and situation and I'd wager that they would provide a good lawyer and national attention. It may never happen, as I said, there have been no searches as yet and I don't CCW to work because of the policy, but in my mind this is about the rights of the individual.
But I see guys from the other operation walk past me, not 20 feet away, with a shotgun or rifle or handgun and it kind of ticks me off that we are in the same building and they can carry whatever whenever right out in the open, but I am disallowed by company policy. I do realize that they do work for a different operation and have different company policy, but it seems unfair to me. Supposedly, the no firearms policy is for my protection, BS, I think it's more of a control issue with the company I work for. To be honest I don't feel unsafe at work, but to me this is an issue of losing the rights afforded me by the constitution. As previously mentioned in this thread, where does the company's property end? The front door? The parking lot? There was a rumor a couple of years back that they went to an employees house and demanded to search it for stolen materials, no police, no warrant, just company guys demanding to search the employees home. Now I know what rumors are worth, which is nothing, but it makes you think.
I am an NRA member and I know about what is going on in OK and that situation is what got me to thinking about this subject seriously. I was hired several years back and have never signed any papers agreeing that search of a vehicle was a condition of employment, so when vehicle search was mentioned offhand (over a year ago) I thought "yeah right they have no grounds for that, they're just running a bluff", but are they? I've seen corporate America get more arrogant and controlling by the year, money talks. If it came down to the wire, I'd walk and get a good lawyer and use the wiggle room I have to push my side of the story. The NRA would be the first group to know my name and situation and I'd wager that they would provide a good lawyer and national attention. It may never happen, as I said, there have been no searches as yet and I don't CCW to work because of the policy, but in my mind this is about the rights of the individual.