4th amendment question

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WA State

I have a question regarding the 4th, search and siezure of firearm...

If a law abiding citizen, meaning has valid concealed pistol license, not a criminal, walks into a private place of buisness, that place of buisness happens to have xray and metal detector, can the buisness seize and search your person and property?

Person has firearm in back pack, goes through security and the gun is detected via xray, does the buisness have the right to detain and search your bag for the firearm and anything else? If the person made no intentions of committing a crime and perhaps just forgot the firearm was in the bag.

Keep in mind the buisness is private and the person is known to the buisness to have a good realationship with them.

I understand when you submit your items for xray, you basically consent to a search. If the buisness knows you are in good standing and legally have a gun than I would think they could basically just ask you to leave.

Thanks

is this a school question?



the basic answer to your question is:

yes, as a private entity they can make just about any rule they wish concerning the patrons of their business as long as it is not based on illegal discrimination (gender, religion, ethnicity, and so forth).

If you do not wish to submit to whatever searches or restrictions they impose on entering their business, you are free to decline and leave.

Yes this is a scenario that was chosen through research for school.
This was a real life incident that happened at a private corporation when an employee happens to forget they had a firearm in their bag when it went through x-ray. The employee was recreationally shooting the day before and had left the gun in the bag.
I know administrative searches can apply to airports, federal buildings, etc...
What I have found out was private property and gov buildings have to post signage (no weapons, guns, knives, etc...) on their property before entry
It was known per company policy that no weapons are allowed but its not posted. You can however have a firearm in your vehicle. That being said, when the employee walked into the building, the weapon was seen in the bag via x-ray. The person running the x-ray stopped the x-ray and directed
employee to put hands in the air. Employee not realizing what was happening freaked out and questioned other employee running machine. The employee was several feet away from the bag and made no advancement or intentions of being threatening. Other employees (Officers that work in building arrived) and stood by employee until management could arrive.

In short, the employee was directed to be handcuffed, which did not happen and his bag seized. The employee had also made it known they requested to leave the property, (in the beginning of the incident) for the day because of the traumatic incident they went through. The bag was taken to undisclosed location and searched.
What I am trying to determine is was the employee basically in custody and was the bag illegally seized and searched.
Keep in mind the employees working the xray and that had arrived to assist are private police employed by the business.
The employee is now seeking legal action against the business....

I don't do homework.

Generally, a private individual does not have any authority to seize property. If I walk into a private building, and the owner doesn't want me there with my gun, they can ask me to surrender the weapon or leave. They cannot take it by force. They cannot handcuff me (false imprisonment).

I suspect the employee consented when they were hired.

=jarbo;2970946]
What I am trying to determine is was the employee basically in custody and was the bag illegally seized and searched.

Click to expand...

unless they are police, in the terms required to allow the Constitutional rights to be considered, they were not seized in the terms required to be a violation of their 4th amend rights. If they were physically seized without legal justification, there was a criminal act on the part of the employer. Seizure of the weapon would also be a crime unless there is something not known here that would allow the seizure.



Now that you disclose it is an employer/employee situation, that can radically alter what is allowable though and the actions may have been entirely proper.

Thank you for your professional thoughts on it… According to the case, the person that seized the gun (was in a backpack I guess) were private police but commissioned officers while on duty through some wired legislative act. So I am assuming they are government actors and have to follow the constitution.

I just got through with my class (live online lecture) presenting a short narrative of what I think should be done and my instructor asked what other professionals in the legal field thought. Part of the assignment was to seek outside opinions for lectures purposes only.

I think in this case too, the employee knows they have to be screened daily when entering the building. So the employee gives implied consent to the search?? Even if there is consent, I would think the officer should have asked the employee to take the gun out to their car or just leave the property. I guess the employees are allowed to keep firearms in their vehicles. When the officer stepped over the line is when the bag was sized, searched and the employee guarded by several other officers and was not free to leave.

What is interesting is the business is private but employs Police Officers to do physical security and screening. Like a Federal building but this is a private business. So for argument sake, if the officers are government actors for the purpose of law enforcement, I would assume the 4th applies to them and the employee has grounds for actions.

Just my thoughts and thank you all….

Police officers are allowed to have second jobs providing security. Many do, in fact.

Much depends on the uniform they are wearing when they provide that security.

I will say this. Many businesses would have gone REALLLLLL squirrely when a gun enters the workplace. I don't care for the reason... I just care that there is a gun.

In reality.... I can see security seizing the gun, telling the employee to leave for the day and then terminate him. I can then see the business waiting for the employee to sue the business for the gun or the value of the gun before it or a check representing it's value is returned.

That way, no one gets shot.

cyjeff said:

Police officers are allowed to have second jobs providing security. Many do, in fact.

Much depends on the uniform they are wearing when they provide that security.

I will say this. Many businesses would have gone REALLLLLL squirrely when a gun enters the workplace. I don't care for the reason... I just care that there is a gun.

In reality.... I can see security seizing the gun, telling the employee to leave for the day and then terminate him. I can then see the business waiting for the employee to sue the business for the gun or the value of the gun before it or a check representing it's value is returned.

That way, no one gets shot.

Click to expand...

This is not a 2nd job for the officers. Its a full time position. The uniform worn says police... Again, the officers are full time commissioned law enforcement while on duty under a legislative act. The company is private with no gov interest.

I agree that seizing or securing the weapon for a very short period is reasonable but I would not think they could retain possession of it or it would be theft. If the employee is merely just violating policy not state law than making employee leave or terminating them would be a legitimate response.
Now refusing the employee his right to leave the area/property to me would be a detainment or custody issue. The search of the bag not just too where the gun was located but the entire bag, all pockets also seems like an illegal search.

All of this would be fine if the officers were private security or the employee had committed a crime.

part of the problem with this discussion is that we are not privy to the same facts you apparently are. That is one reason homework and hypothetical situations are not welcomed here in general.



Sorry folks. I should have kept my big mouth shut.

cbg said:

I don't do homework.

Click to expand...

**A: neither do I. If I don't even do my own homework, I certainly won't do homework for others.

the business has no right to search you at ALL. they can ask you to leave & that's about it.

plus you don't need a license to carry ... per 2nd amendment "keep & BEAR"

recent SCOTUS cases have shown this to be correct..

when asked "stop, we want to search you" just walk away...if they stop you then they are either a) performing a citizens arrest that leaves them open to be sued of b) kidnapping you which leaves them open to be arrested.

Victorxyz3 said:

the business has no right to search you at ALL. they can ask you to leave & that's about it.

Click to expand...

Well, and fire the OP, of course. They can still do that.

Please state the law that says a private business does not have the right to search a person that walks onto their private property ... especially when a sign STATING that all persons that walk onto their private property are subject to search.

Thanks.

All of your ramblings are restrictions on government action... not private citizen action.... but maybe there was a SCOTUS ruling on it that I have not seen.

Victorxyz3 said:

the business has no right to search you at ALL. they can ask you to leave & that's about it.

plus you don't need a license to carry ... per 2nd amendment "keep & BEAR"

recent SCOTUS cases have shown this to be correct..

when asked "stop, we want to search you" just walk away...if they stop you then they are either a) performing a citizens arrest that leaves them open to be sued of b) kidnapping you which leaves them open to be arrested.

Click to expand...

And they have a right to refuse him entry if he chooses to bypass their security or refuses to submit to the search. He does NOT have a right to enter their business without adhering to their rules. In this scenario, the subject submitted to the search and the firearm was discovered. At that point, the business could detain for the police if they desired, or return the weapon and tell him to leave, or whatever else they might choose to do.

CdwJava said:

And they have a right to refuse him entry if he chooses to bypass their security or refuses to submit to the search. He does NOT have a right to enter their business without adhering to their rules. In this scenario, the subject submitted to the search and the firearm was discovered. At that point, the business could detain for the police if they desired, or return the weapon and tell him to leave, or whatever else they might choose to do.

Click to expand...

Well once you agree, you agree