Search and Seizure @ Work

[MoGeN]

I work for a large corporation here in Florida and recently, due to high theft in the store, the VP of sales has instituted a new policy which requires all employees to be subjected to a search by a security guard with a metal detector.

We weren't given a notice but instead a "Starting now" memo. So each time we leave the store we must empty our pockets and stand still as the security guard checks us.

They are ready have cameras in the store (without a notice to customers that they are being taped) and now this. Instead of taking higher security measures they pin the theft on us.

I approached my store manager and questioned him about the legality of the scan since we did not sign an agreement or agree to the new policy. I was told that if I did not allow the security guard to scan me then I'd be fired.

I'm one of the longest employees at the store and have a good reputation with the Owner of the company and I don't want to lose my job but I also don't want to give up my rights and be humiliated in front of customers as I am scanned and they are not.

I just want to know if they can legally search me without my consent. Especially if they have no reason to believe that I've stolen something.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Sheesh. When you walk into an airport terminal, do you get scanned there? Did you sign anything to let them scan you?

As far as firing you for non-compliance, do you have a contract to work there? Otherwise, you may want to start reading the classifieds.

 

[CdwJava]

The Constitution provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure by the government - not your employer. If you do not like the conditions of employment, you can grieve the action (best if you have a union to help), you can try and get an injunction against the action (not likely), or you can quit.

If your contract covers these sorts of issues, you might take a look at it. But, I doubt it's going to cover how you leave the store.

And if you feel that strongly about it, you may be left with one of two options - start a movement to change the policy from within, or quit.

Carl

 

[MoGeN]

Correct me if I am wrong.

What you mean is since I do not work under a contract that I have only the rights granted to me by my employer?

Then why do they have an internet policy? So they can fire you if you use the internet? or because they want access to what you are doing? Can they not read your e-mails and instant messages unless you consent?

I just don't think that they deny a constitutional right by forcing me to consent to a search. I've read up on this matter and I can't find anywhere that it specifically states if an employer can search you without consent or if they can't. I've even spoken to my sister-in-law who is a law student. Her professor couldn't give an answer either.

I just want to know if it is legal mainly because if it is then I say no more and continue on with my job. If it isn't legal then I can approach HR with the matter for the sake of my rights and the rights of my co-workers.

 

[CdwJava]

Correct me if I am wrong.

What you mean is since I do not work under a contract that I have only the rights granted to me by my employer?

You work under specific working conditions. If these conditions do not spell this out one way or the other, than it is entirely likely that such a thing is completely under the control of the employer. Searching employees with a metal detector and having you empty pockets after work can be considered a reasonable act. Strip searches in the back room would not.

Then why do they have an internet policy? So they can fire you if you use the internet? or because they want access to what you are doing? Can they not read your e-mails and instant messages unless you consent?

Having a policy puts the employee on notice of what the rules are. It's hard to fire someone for not complying to a rule if they do not KNOW the rule. However, no policy I know of requires advance warning. It can be enacted, "now" unless otherwise unlawful or in violation of state law.

I just don't think that they deny a constitutional right by forcing me to consent to a search.

They aren't the government. They aren't denying you a Constitutional right. It's the same as if I wanted to search you as a condition of coming to my house to use the pool. I can search you without cause. If you did not ant to be searched, you do not have to come to use my pool.

The same is true here. You do not have a Constitutional right to a job. The employer has certain guidelines they have established. If you do not wish to comply, you can work elsewhere or seek to change the policy.

But it is NOT a Constitutional violation.

I've read up on this matter and I can't find anywhere that it specifically states if an employer can search you without consent or if they can't.

It's easy ... you either go along with stated policy, or you face potential termination. It doesn't have to be stated anywhere one way or the other.

I suppose you could seek out an attorney to take a case for wrongful termination if you had the money ... but I seriously doubt that you would get very far with it unless the employer was proning people out on the floor of the business or doing strip searches.

I've even spoken to my sister-in-law who is a law student. Her professor couldn't give an answer either.

Well, it may be state specific. I know some businesses and corporations in CA that do just that. It is apparently lawful here.

I just want to know if it is legal mainly because if it is then I say no more and continue on with my job. If it isn't legal then I can approach HR with the matter for the sake of my rights and the rights of my co-workers.

The only way to truly answer the question for your state and situation would be to consult a labor law attorney. If I had to put money on it, I would bet heavily on the employer's right to establish this rule. Unless your state grants many more rights to workers than CA (and I doubt ANYONE does), I just don't see you as having too many choices in the matter besides leaving or trying to change the policy.

Sorry.

Good luck.

Carl

 

[Lorane]

I can not believe that any legal system would allow this type of treatment of US citizens in the work place. I have worked for almost 40 years. One fortune 500 company, when they closed our branch office, told us that they didn't care if the business they were doing was ethical, only if it was legal. This is what big corporation have come to, using employees until they don't need them any longer and then tossing them out.
Laws should be upheld and created for the people and by the people. Most of the laws passed in the last decade have been in favor of big business and not for the people and by the people. Could this type of treatment in businesses be part of the New World Government practices?

I am not a lawyer, but see that self employment and a self sufficient life style should be the aim of every citizen because it is not evident in the laws that they are for the people and by the people. One of my papers in college was on the constitution. In my research, I found that no laws were to be passed to protect us from ourselves. The paper was in response to the seat belt law. I questioned the legality of the law to several lawyers and they all told me that I had a point and would look into the matter. Never heard back from them.
In response to the law student, I can show papers from a lawyer here in Missouri, who is in practicing law, for more than 20 years, and he at time can not create a comprehensible sentence and lacks in the spelling arena. And as for adding, 2 + 2, he could not get it to add up to 4. There are even judges that don't seem to be able to add. You can tell that by the judgements that have been handed down.
A very good and respected lawyer told me that the courts can't take what you don't have. Boy was he wrong. When the law says that it can not take more than 50 percent of your income and the judge rules a judgement for 80 percent, I see no justice here.
I thought a lawyer was to resprent his client, that is what they are being payed to do, not the courts.
This country really needs to get back to 'for the people and by the people'

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Well Lorane, we can change the laws. YOu can have the big bad government control your workplace, then your home, then the way you raise your children and which church you attend.

Sounds like you'll be taken care of the rest of your life right?

To MoGen, if you had done a search on this site you would have come across a very lengthy and difinitive discussion on the reasons for workplace searches, the supporting case law and the substantitive state statutes.

But, being lazy, you just threw your question out there and decided to waste a lot of people's time answer it for the fifth time in the last week.

It IS legal. In fact, it's legal if you park in their parking lot and they search your car. So, if you don't like the new policy, quit. That's your right in this great country.

 

[cbg]

Did anyone else notice that this thread was started in July?

 

[Lorane]

BelizeBreeze,
I was only stating that most of the laws have been enacted in the favor of big business. I an not in favor of laws being enacted to tell people how to live. I do not need laws to protect me from myself. As per many other post your answers are very arrogant and totally unnecessary.

 

[cbg]

Just as it is totally unnecessary for you to reopen threads that are months old and argue about them.

 

[Lorane]

An issue is an issue not matter how long. Does an issue stop being an issue in the courts after 5 months? I think not.

 

[CdwJava]

An issue is an issue not matter how long. Does an issue stop being an issue in the courts after 5 months? I think not.

Considering it's not even a government issue - it's one between an employee and an employer - it's certainly not an issue for this folder.

- Carl

 

[BelizeBreeze]

An issue is an issue not matter how long. Does an issue stop being an issue in the courts after 5 months? I think not.

Lorane, when are you going to pull you head out of your oraffice long enough to FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS FORUM?

This question has been answered in depth more than once. Now, answer this?

When is a membership not a membership?

 

[AHA]

I can not believe that any legal system would allow this type of treatment of US citizens in the work place. I have worked for almost 40 years. One fortune 500 company, when they closed our branch office, told us that they didn't care if the business they were doing was ethical, only if it was legal. This is what big corporation have come to, using employees until they don't need them any longer and then tossing them out.
Laws should be upheld and created for the people and by the people. Most of the laws passed in the last decade have been in favor of big business and not for the people and by the people. Could this type of treatment in businesses be part of the New World Government practices?

I am not a lawyer, but see that self employment and a self sufficient life style should be the aim of every citizen because it is not evident in the laws that they are for the people and by the people. One of my papers in college was on the constitution. In my research, I found that no laws were to be passed to protect us from ourselves. The paper was in response to the seat belt law. I questioned the legality of the law to several lawyers and they all told me that I had a point and would look into the matter. Never heard back from them.
In response to the law student, I can show papers from a lawyer here in Missouri, who is in practicing law, for more than 20 years, and he at time can not create a comprehensible sentence and lacks in the spelling arena. And as for adding, 2 + 2, he could not get it to add up to 4. There are even judges that don't seem to be able to add. You can tell that by the judgements that have been handed down.
A very good and respected lawyer told me that the courts can't take what you don't have. Boy was he wrong. When the law says that it can not take more than 50 percent of your income and the judge rules a judgement for 80 percent, I see no justice here.
I thought a lawyer was to resprent his client, that is what they are being payed to do, not the courts.
This country really needs to get back to 'for the people and by the people'

You need to point the finger partly at yourself because who do you think elects(votes for) the people who are given the power to create and pass laws?? It sure isn't "the corporate America" all on it's own!!