The purpose of my paper is to present possible security options that will thwart reported losses in the workplace all while being careful as to not offend any employer/employee keeping within a carefully researched legal space. In my proposal to establish an administrative search program, I am both diligent and meticulous in avoiding implementing protocols that can be seen as unnecessarily offensive, unreasonable, discriminatory, intrusive, or frivolous. My proposal is as follows, I would like to implement a system of security that conducts searches at random on an annual basis with a minimum of 2 searches being conducted per year. Employees will be privy to the fact that there should be no expectation of privacy in the workplace on the premises as well as when employees are on duty.
Employees should be provided with the understanding that they are subject to be searched at any time. These rules apply whether or not employee is present. Employees should be equip with the understanding that they are not to bring anything to work that they would not be prepared to turn over to company officials or law enforcement upon request. Searches done upon reasonable suspicion are also in the right of the company. Reasonable suspicion includes an individual or individuals that the company believes are in possession of prohibited items. Employees will not at any time be subject to be physically searched. However, employees who refuse the search and seizure process may be subject to termination of their employment.
In Chenkin v. Bellevue Hospital center, Plaintiff, Paul Chenkin, challenged the legality of a system of regulation put in place by Bellevue in an effort to prevent the taking of hospital property. Under this regulation, all bags and packages carried by employees wishing to leave hospital grounds are subject to random inspection by security officers. Chenkin is an assistant chemist employed by the hospital who instituted an action for declaratory judgment on Bellevue’s “pilferage control-package system.” His question for decision rests on the whether or not the inspection is violative of a person or persons Fourth Amendment right. Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement for one week of lost wages which was deducted from his salary after it was determined that plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of the package control system. The defendants argue in favor of the system, claiming that it is both fair and reasonable and that is a valid requirement and condition of employment, for all these reasons the defendants believe that the system is constitutional.
Plaintiff claims that the issues related to the search program that need to be resolved are that they fail to cater to an expectation of privacy that plaintiff feel is rightfully deserved to hospital personnel. Plaintiff contends that the hospitals policy of subjecting the contents of his personal things to inspection is an invasion of his right to privacy. This is supported by the fact that the Fourth Amendment protects people form unreasonable intrusion into their privacy by government agencies. Defendant argues that not all privacy issues that a person asserts are protected by the constitution. Unless sed person can prove a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy, the application of the fourth amendment does not and should not apply. Plantiff also raised two additional arguments in which he states that hospital policy is unfair in that it violates the principle of equal protection by exempting women’s pocketbooks from being inspected. Chenkin also asserts that the general public is not informed about the hospitals procedure and for this reason the searches are unreasonable with respect to the public at large.
Chenkin asserts that Bellevue’s searches are unreasonable and are a violation of his Fourth Amendment right. He claims that the tactics used by the hospital are unrequitedly an invasion of employee privacy. Bellevue believes that the searches are reasonable, as they have no coercive or offensive impact. Bellevue further asserts that because Plaintiff was forewarned of the search he was not intimidated by the element of being surprised. Plaintiff was an employee that was familiar with the area in which he was asked for his belongings. Because plaintiff was chosen at random, he was not singled out by the suspicion of wrongdoing.
The search was only intended for locating hospital property that was not authorized to leave hospital grounds. Furthermore, there is no indication that these searches were facilitated for any other reason than to confiscate hospital property. No threats or compulsions were imposed upon Chenkin or any other hospital personnel. When plaintiff was identified by security he was permitted to leave without being questioned or detained. The intrusion, Bellevue explains, was minimal and the examination conducted was brief making it both fair and reasonable. There is no evidence of there being any less restrictive measures that could have been utilized in an effort to accomplish the hospitals purpose. Bellevue beliefs that Plaintiff is also at fault because Chenkin opted out of the alternative procedure. The alternative procedure requires hospital employees to check in their bags before entering the hospital and upon leaving they are permitted to take their belongings without inspection. Plaintiff freely chose to not select the alternative but insisted upon carrying his bag into the building without submitting its contents to examination when he was requested by security to do so.
The motion was granted in favor of Bellevue hospital. The motion has effected company security operations by making it mandatory that companies have a clear policy that explores all legal quandaries. It has also created an arena in which employers take into account the rights of the employee. The motion for Bellevue has allowed for the understanding that a company is in the right of creating a process In which they feel they can best protect their company from pilferage.
- By the same token, no one should call the employee to be searched defamatory names such as “thief”, “drug user”, or worse. (n.d.). SEARCHES AT WORK – LEGAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER. Retrieved September 05, 2016, from http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/searches_at_work_legal_issues_to_consider.htm
- Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)
- Midwest New Media, LLC – http://www.midwestnewmedia.com – (513) 742-9150. (n.d.). Workplace Searches – Workplace Fairness. Retrieved September 05, 2016, from http://www.workplacefairness.org/searches
- Personal Policy Service is now a BLR Brand. (n.d.). Retrieved September 05, 2016, from http://www.ppspublishers.com/ez/html/060804txtb.html
