Can My Employer Search My Car

[Socrates]

First off: State law governs government search of your car. Find out what it is.

Since we don't know who your employer is, and how they are related to the state, we can't speculate. If it is a school that falls under your states education code, the law may support their right to search

 

[biscuitninja]

Any new information?
-bix

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Similar cases have involved K-9 searches of school and employee lockers on the respective property. The USSC has ruled that the lockers do not belong to the student nor the employee but belong to the employer, therefore the employer and school has control to authorize a search of the lockers.

Not to be nit-picky, but I can see that the lockers are owned by the employer but not the bag/briefcase within the locker. Too bad private containers aren't.

 

[sacp81170a]

Similar cases have involved K-9 searches of school and employee lockers on the respective property. The USSC has ruled that the lockers do not belong to the student nor the employee but belong to the employer, therefore the employer and school has control to authorize a search of the lockers.

That would apply if the vehicle was company owned. In this case, the vehicle is privately owned. Are you claiming that an employer has a right to break into your car to search it? In the case of the deputy, the squad car did not belong to the deputy, it was owned by the local government.

 

[ExSoldier]

Depends. If you work on any military base including reserve or national guard then YES. If you work on school grounds, maybe. I'm a teacher in the public schools and there is a clause in my contract that precludes this absent the normal "probable cause." As the USSC has already held: Bumper stickers don't presume such a presence of pc. Private employers may forbid you to have weapons in the car on THEIR property and forbid carrying during business hours, but I doubt they can forbid off hour ccw. In Florida the ban is in effect, a company policy without extreme force of law. The worst that can happen legally is a ticket or a misdemeanor arrest or of course job termination. In other states it's a felony on that books and can get you hauled off to the slammer, quick! Check your own state laws.

 

[isp2605]

That would apply if the vehicle was company owned. In this case, the vehicle is privately owned. Are you claiming that an employer has a right to break into your car to search it? In the case of the deputy, the squad car did not belong to the deputy, it was owned by the local government.

If you bring it on to another's property then they get to search it if they wish. Doesn't matter if it's company car or your car. Your choice is you don't bring it on company property.

Not to be nit-picky, but I can see that the lockers are owned by the employer but not the bag/briefcase within the locker. Too bad private containers aren't.

They most certain can search private bags/briefcases if you bring it on their property. The USSC has ruled on that many times too and upheld the property owner's right to search.

Property owners don't need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to conduct a search. They can just say they're going to search. Think about it. Most people who object to it look at it from a worker's point of view because they're not property owners. However, you as a property owner retain the rights to what occurs on your property. It goes way back to old common law. It's yours, you say what goes on.

 

[alsaqr]

Do not ever inform anyone at work that you pack. If your car is in an employer owned parking lot-yes, they can search it.

 

[gym]

I posted some info a few days ago, similar situation with HRS, they never bothered going any further, after calling me in for finding through a background check, that I has a license, the parking lot was public, and I wasn't a teacher, or carrying the weapon, but the guy told me I couldn't have it in my car. I told him it was none of his business. He told me he was going to speak to legal. Nothing happened. After a month, I decided, that this company sucked , but they were unable to go anywhere with the gun deal, This is the South, and that has a lot to do with how things are done here. Winn Dixie had a sign in the window about 9 yrs ago, that said, handguns were prohibited from thier store, on the front door. They were told to remove the sign, someone must have got an attorney. This is the South.

 

[sacp81170a]

Property owners don't need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to conduct a search.

So if you park in my driveway I can break into your car for any reason and be justified? Don't think so...

 

[Pepper46]

"If your employee handbook says you can be terminated for having a gun in your car, they can terminate you for having a gun in your car. Period. End of discussion."
Not necessarily true. Depends on where you live. The State of Kansas, in HR 2528 protects ccw holders from termination for having a legal weapon in their vehicles, whether it be on company property or not, and further states that companies may post buildings, and may prohibit you from carrying on the job, but may not post parking facilities.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

If you bring it on to another's property then they get to search it if they wish. Doesn't matter if it's company car or your car. Your choice is you don't bring it on company property.

So if I park my car in the mall parking lot, the mall management has the right to search my car looking for shoplifted items and contriband?

We have discussed and researched this where I work. The employee parking lot is "owned" by the company but is open to both us and the public. Anyone may park there. There is no "agreement" with the employer that they may search our vehicles as terms of employment.

It is our understanding that management does not have the right to search anyones vehicle without first going through law enforcement and obtaining a search warrant. As it is not illegal to have firearms in a vehicle in a "public" parking area, mere suspicion there might be a gun in the vehicle is not grounds for a search warrant.

The location does have a security perimeter. It is company policy that all vehicles that enter that perimeter are subject to inspection when leaving to search for any company equipment that may have been stolen. This means "inspection," not "search." The guards may look into the passenger compartment, trunk and/or any attached trailer. They may not dig through items in the vehicle, crawl under the seats or dump out the contents of the glove compartment/center console.

What makes the whole issue stupid where I work is the company doesn't permit personal firearms on the property, but part of our work includes using 12-gauge shotguns, which are not only stored on the property, but are easily accessible.

 

[KINGMAX]

That is why I stopped carrying.

That is the reason I stopped carrying. I park on a secured lot, my employer can search at any time. In twenty-one years, I know of no searches.

 

[thorn726]

wow, the thread title made me laugh, but that you even need to ask about this really just makes me sad.

it's amazing what people can be convinced of by authoritarians.

So if I park my car in the mall parking lot, the mall management has the right to search my car looking for shoplifted items and contraband?

for contraband? i doubt it for stolen property from their mall, absolutely-

but THEY BETTER BE SURE because if they are wrong, you can sue them.
security officers usually make absolutley certain they saw an item shoplifted, and act immediately, so the discussion is fairly moot anyway

 

[isp2605]

Quote:
Property owners don't need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to conduct a search.

So if you park in my driveway I can break into your car for any reason and be justified? Don't think so...

Figures someone would come up with this one. Shows a lack of understanding of the law. What you "think" doesn't really matter. What's the law is what matters. It also shows you didn't read the entire post.
As a private person you don't need probably cause or even reasonable suspicion to conduct a search. Why? Because as a private person you can't get a search warrant. Search warrants are required of the government and for the government to secure a search warrant they have to show certain things. The 4th Amendment is to protect the people from the government.
So the answer is, if someone parks a vehicle on your property, then yes, you can break in to it. However, just like the government when conducting search warrants, you are responsible for the damages.
The USSC has repeated upheld such cases. It protects the rights of the individual and their property. You find the ones who object to such rulings are those who don't really own much property but feel that everyone else's property is fair game. When I was teaching admin search law we use to call such beliefs "the socialist mentality" in that what's mine is mine but what's yours should also be mine too.

 

[sacp81170a]

So the answer is, if someone parks a vehicle on your property, then yes, you can break in to it. However, just like the government when conducting search warrants, you are responsible for the damages.

I understand completely about the 4th amendment being a restraint on government. I also understand a thing or two about vandalism, burglary, etc. If I park in your driveway with your permission, you have no right to search my vehicle arbitrarily. If I park in your driveway without your permission, you have the right to have my vehicle removed from your property. If you break into my vehicle to search it, you are liable for any damage you cause, which belies your "right".

The USSC has repeated upheld such cases.

Relevant cite, please.

Here's how it works in my jurisdiction if a car is abandoned and a property owner wishes it to be removed:

1. Property owner calls requesting us to move the vehicle.
2. We call a towing company to come and tow the vehicle to an impound lot.
3. We open the vehicle with the aid of a locksmith if necessary. His services become part of the charge to get the vehicle out of impound.
4. We conduct an inventory of the vehicle's contents.

If you as a property owner smash the window and search the vehicle, you can be charged by the vehicle owner for burglary and are liable for anything that he or she claims is now missing. You have assumed what is called in legal terminology a "bailment", in other words, you are now responsible for that vehicle and its contents.

You have asserted your "rights" as a property owner, but they come with responsibilities. If you find evidence of a crime, say, a pound of drugs or stolen property, you have just presented the investigating authorities with a very sticky problem. It can be claimed that you planted the contraband and you can be charged. At the very least you will make an investigating officer very angry with your ham-handed spoilage of what could have been a legitimate case.

Your best bet is to have the vehicle removed from your property without disturbing the contents. Just because something is on your property doesn't mean it belongs to you. If you were to decide that you needed to break the windows on a vehicle that belonged to someone else while it was on your property, they would be justified in using force in stopping you. Your "rights" as a property owner in this case extend essentially to choosing what may and may not be present on your property.

If you sign an agreement on employment authorizing the company to check your vehicle for theft of company property, you may renege on that agreement at any time and refuse. The company may then terminate you for cause, but they may not use force in accomplishing their "search". That's where you're having a problem. Ultimately it comes down to who is authorized to use force in carrying out a search. If consent is refused, absent a signed search warrant executed by an LEO, private citizens or companies have no authority to use force to detain or search another person without probable cause.

As a private person you don't need probably cause or even reasonable suspicion to conduct a search.

As a private citizen you can and will be charged with assault and battery or unlawful detention if you use force in conducting a search under the circumstances you describe. It's you that doesn't understand the workings of the law. Absent probable cause, you have no inherent authority to search persons or property under their control simply because they happen to be on your property.

 

[ptmmatssc]

What's the law is what matters

if someone parks a vehicle on your property, then yes, you can break in to it

.

Well , here in my state it's called "burglary of a motor vehicle" You have the right to request to inspect/search a vehicle . But , upon refusal you may/can request that person to leave the property , and if they do not it becomes trespassing . At that point you call the local pd and report the trespass .

I'm betting that if someone owning a parking lot open to the public started "breaking in " to the cars , that they would very quickly be wearing a nice set of shiny bracelets. There's a reason companies make searches a part of employment . Because the car is also "private property" and without the consent of the owner , it would be burglary of a vehicle or something similar .

The USSC has repeated upheld such cases. It protects the rights of the individual and their property.

Funny , never have seen any ruling that allows B&E of a vehicle by private property owners. I HAVE seen rulings that allow searches based upon private property owners letting people onto their property with possibility of a search being one of the conditions of entering the property . Even then , refusal to the search means they must leave or can be charged with trespass .

 

[isp2605]

I also understand a thing or two about vandalism, burglary, etc.

You may understand a thing or 2 but you obviously don't understand the legal definitions and the elements needed for vandalism, burglary, etc. Read the statutes. Searching items on your property does not meet the definitions of vandalism or burglary.

. If I park in your driveway with your permission, you have no right to search my vehicle arbitrarily. If I park in your driveway without your permission, you have the right to have my vehicle removed from your property. If

You're sort of on the right track but your flair away a bit. To park on a person's private property the property owner does retain the right to establish whatever rules he wishes to grant you permission. That's the entire crux of this thread, the property owner's right to search.

If you break into my vehicle to search it, you are liable for any damage you cause, which belies your "right".

Doesn't matter if you as a private land owner or government agents conducting a search warrant, you are responsible for any damage. I've said so in previous post. However, that in no way has any bearing on the property owners right to control whatever is brought upon their property.

you are now responsible for that vehicle and its contents. You have asserted your "rights" as a property owner, but they come with responsibilities.

No one said anything different. You are trying to equate responsibility of property to right to search. Two entirely separate unrelate issues.

If you find evidence of a crime, say, a pound of drugs or stolen property, you have just presented the investigating authorities with a very sticky problem.

Absolutely wrong. No "sticky problem" at all. Such incidents happen everyday in every jurisdiction in the country. A citizen finds contraband on their property and turns it in to authorities. Not at all a "sticky problem".

It can be claimed that you planted the contraband and you can be charged.

Oh please! Is that the best you can do? Did you ever spend ANY time in investigations?

At the very least you will make an investigating officer very angry with your ham-handed spoilage of what could have been a legitimate case.

You just answered my last question with this response. Every crime scene is going to be spoiled to some degree by a non-LEO because LEOs are seldom the first at the scene. Your argument is again bogus.

You're going way off on a tangent which has no bearing on the right to a property owner to search items brought on their property. Before you spout off something about admin searches (which is what is being discussed) then do some research on the various USSC cases which fully uphold the rights of the property owner to control items brought on their property. There is absolutely no need for an employer/employee to "sign an agreement on employment authorizing the company to check your vehicle for theft of company property". Absolutely bogus.

This topic is particularly difficult for LEOs who have never dealt with admin law o understand how it differs so much from criminal law. They invariably try to equate searches with the requirements necessary to obtain a search warrant. Not at all the case. One is action by the government requiring protection of the 4th Amend. The other is action by the individual which does not have any restrictions of the 4th in obtaining a search warrant.

What you are describing in "your jurisdiction" is a dept policy. Dept policy does not have anything at all to do with the citizen's rights controlling items accessed on their property. Don't confuse the two issues. Two separate matters.

 

[isp2605]

Funny , never have seen any ruling that allows B&E of a vehicle by private property owners.

Again, this type of argument never fails to get brought up. It's hardly the same elements. I really doubt you've read too many if any USSC rulings on admin searches then. You're not committing a burglary by conducting a search of items brought upon your property. I used the example earlier of an employer or schools searching lockers in their place of business. The employer/schools can use whatever means to enter the locker and search the contents because the person using the locker does not own the locker. The employer/school only allows them to use it but they still retain ownership.

 

[sacp81170a]

Searching items on your property does not meet the definitions of vandalism or burglary.

It does if you forcibly break and enter a motor vehicle.

That's the entire crux of this thread, the property owner's right to search.

Does the property owner have a right to use force in conducting a search? Bluntly, no. If you have no right to use force, you have no authority. QED. All your other arguments are negated by this fact.

 

[Ed Ames]

A good general rule for private parties is that they have no right to search any person or property not under their control. Being on their property (in their house, parked in their driveway, etc) is not the same as being under their control. Under control would be when you have posssession (e.g. you have a key or permission from the owner to use the property) or they are your minor child/ward. Otherwise you have a right to eject and you may have rights to take possession.

If an employer wants to search an employee's car they must gain possession of the vehicle by getting the employee's permission. It's a limited possession but still present. By making the employee sign a search agreement as a condition of employment they are explicitly buying that interest in the vehicle(s) owned by employees and parked on their lot(s), just as they buy 8 hours of each employees' working day, permission to perform credit or background checks, control of how employees dress, or whatever else is stipulated in the employee handbook. Refusing to let them search is equivalent to refusing to come in to work or refusing to do your job. It may be grounds for termination but it is not criminal.

Contrast that with a person in your house. Unless they are your minor child you can't force them to turn out their pockets. You can ask them to do so and if they refuse you can ask them to leave, but that's where your rights to compel action end. If they refuse to leave you can eject them by force but you can't demand that they turn out their pockets first. If you tell them they can't leave until they turn out their pockets you run a serious risk of being charged with a crime.

A car in your driveway is very similar. You can ask it to leave. (Ask the owners to remove it.) If it fails to leave you can eject it. (Have the car towed.) You cannot force it to turn out its pockets or refuse to let it leave until it has done so. (Force entry and search/refuse to let the owner leave until they allow a search.) In the case of a car you may legally be able to get possession of it through storage liens or the like but that takes documentation and time.


Is that the absolute letter of the law throughout the land? Probably not... but it's a decent general rule.

 

[sacp81170a]

Refusing to let them search is equivalent to refusing to come in to work or refusing to do your job. It may be grounds for termination but it is not criminal.

Exactly! Even when dealing with an LEO you can withdraw your consent to search and the LEO has to stop(at least, that's what my training all these long years has been). Withdrawing your written consent to search given to an employer is grounds for dismissal, but not for the employer to use force to conduct the search. That authority is reserved for an officer with a search warrant.

I have every right in the world to ask anyone on the street to consent to a search, but no right whatsoever to use force to conduct the search when consent is refused or withdrawn unless I'm executing a signed search warrant as a sworn officer. Doesn't matter if I'm on my property or not. The one exception to this is the Terry frisk, where it has been ruled that an officer may conduct a pat down for weapons due to officer safety concerns.

I used the example earlier of an employer or schools searching lockers in their place of business.

The lockers belong to the employer and the school. Your car and your person do not. That's the difference.

 

[isp2605]

Does the property owner have a right to use force in conducting a search? Bluntly, no. If you have no right to use force, you have no authority.

Here's where you show you have extremely limited knowledge of the law. It also shows you haven't done your homework and researched the USSC decisions on the issue.
Your actions have to be what is considered reasonable. Why would you want to use force? You first have to ask what is the purpose of the search. So why would you require force? If the property owner is present you can request the search. That gives them 2 opinions. Either they leave or you can search. Why do you want to damage someone's property? If you can articulate as the property owner that the damage was necessary then you're good to go. But why? So far you haven't provided any reason but wanting to break in.

All your other arguments are negated by this fact.

Not my arguments. USSC rulings. See there's the difference. You're going on what you think. I am just relating what the USSC has upheld. I use to teach this stuff. The IL SC, IL Legislature, and IL Civil Service Commission have all recognized me as an expert in this issue. I've testified numerous times before each and taught it. So these aren't "my arguments" but what the USSC has ruled.

The lockers belong to the employer and the school. Your car and your person do not. That's the difference.

Again, you're showing where you have no experience in this matter. Here's the example the USSC ruled. The person using the locker had a backpack in the locker. The employer cut the lock on the locker and subsequently searched the backpack finding drugs. The police were called and the owner of the backpack charged and convicted. The USSC upheld the search of the backpack by the employer because the owner brought it upon the property owner's land.

Refusing to let them search is equivalent to refusing to come in to work or refusing to do your job. It may be grounds for termination but it is not criminal.

Not everything you wrote is accurate but this part is.
Employers do not need to gain written permission nor does there need to be anything in writing.

 

[sacp81170a]

It also shows you haven't done your homework and researched the USSC decisions on the issue.

Cite, please.

Your actions have to be what is considered reasonable. Why would you want to use force?

Because the person refuses you consent to search.

I am just relating what the USSC has upheld.

Cite, please. I assure I'm very cognizant of what constitutes grounds for a legal search. Unless you can provide me with specific cites where a private party is authorized to use force to conduct a search of another private party or the property under that party's control, your points are moot. How do you propose to conduct a search if that person refuses to be searched?

Not my arguments. USSC rulings.

Cite, please.

The person using the locker had a backpack in the locker. The employer cut the lock on the locker and subsequently searched the backpack finding drugs. The police were called and the owner of the backpack charged and convicted.

Searches of lockers belonging to the property owner have no relevance in relation to searches of motor vehicles belonging to someone else. Your whole argument is a non-sequitur. The subject of this thread is "Can my employer search my vehicle?" not, "Can my employer search my locker?" You are correct in stating that your employer can search a locker he or she has allowed you to use. That's not what's at issue at all here.

 

[isp2605]

Cite, please.

You haven't been following along. I gave one USSC cite Burge v ???? and admitted I can't recall the other party involved. I also said that when I retired I left all my material for my replacement so nothing here at home.

Unless you can provide me with specific cites where a private party is authorized to use force to conduct a search of another private party, your points are moot.

You're the only one talking of using force. What we're talking about is the employer/land owner's right to search.
Again, why would you want to use force? What is it as a landowner/employer you would expect to be using force?
Also if you do the research you'll find the locker case where the lock was cut from the locker to search. I believe it was a case out of Oregon. The most recent case involving a school I believe was out of VA or that area of the country. Again, all that stuff was left with my replacement.

If I hadn't retired or at least maintained all my materials then I'd be happy to provide the exact cites but when I retired none of that material was going to be of any benefit.

So what is your expert training in doing non-LEO searches which are usually referred to as admin searches? I gave mine. So far you only seem to be relating to it in a LE context which is a completely different thing.

 

[sacp81170a]

I gave one USSC cite Burge v ????

That's not a cite.

You're the only one talking of using force. What we're talking about is the employer/land owner's right to search.
Again, why would you want to use force? What is it as a landowner/employer you would expect to be using force?

Again, how do you propose to conduct a search if the person refuses? If the person can effectively refuse and you cannot conduct a search because you would be committing a criminal act in doing so (using force over the other person's objections) then you have no "right" to conduct the search, QED. The reason I bring force into it is that the person you are trying to coerce into consenting to a search has a perfect right to refuse you permission to search his person and the property under his control.

No USSC decision I am aware of allows a property owner to commit a criminal act simply because the other person is on his property.

You speak as if the relationship between employer and employee is not mutual. Let's follow the sequence:

I take a job with your company. As a condition of that employment, I consent to have my vehicle searched while on company property. Your other employees (agents of the company) ask to search my vehicle. I refuse. That effectively severs the mutual agreement. You can choose to allow me to continue to work or tell me to get off the property. In no case does that allow you to search over my objections without criminal sanctions. Absent probable cause (I was seen putting company property in the trunk of my car, say) you have no right to detain me, either. If I leave, you can give the responding officer your story, he can get a warrant and then come and search my car for the property. If I refuse to consent, he can use force to conduct the search.

A "right" that does not allow you to use force is a rather empty right, eh?

Hmmm, kinda reminds me of that right to self defense.

So what is your expert training in doing non-LEO searches which are usually referred to as admin searches? I gave mine. So far you only seem to be relating to it in a LE context which is a completely different thing.

"Non-LEO search" of property not belonging to you and not under your control by force is a criminal act. The relationship between employer and employee is a mutual agreement. Your "admin search" assumes consent. That very assumption is what you fail to see past. If I sever the relationship as an employee, that removes the consent, written or implied. You have no authority to do anything more than request me to leave at that point. If you use force to try and conduct a search, I may legally resist with reasonable force. That doesn't require a law degree to understand. You just can't figure out that employees don't belong to their employer.