Can My Employer Search My Car

[isp2605]

Quote:I gave one USSC cite Burge v ????

That's not a cite.

Once again, I don't have any of that material anymore as I left it all with my replacement when I retired. However, if you go back in my earlier posts you'll see where I explained Burge. Burge was the defendant in the case and I'm sorry that's not good enough for you but I can't recall the plaintiff. Sorry that doesn't meet with your request but going from memory I can only come up with the one name which I previously provided.

Again, how do you propose to conduct a search if the person refuses?

And again, I explained that. The last time was "That gives them 2 opinions. Either they leave or you can search. " I've never said different from the beginning. You seem to want to interject using force.

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.

So far you're the only one advocating committing a criminal act. I've already provided the grounds and process. Again, you have to prove your actions as a landowner were reasonable.

You can choose to allow me to continue to work or tell me to get off the property.

And that's exactly what I said. I think we're talking past each other.

Again tho it goes back to was the landowner's actions reasonable. Why would the landowner be required to use force to enter a vehicle? And what degree of force? Is entering an unlocked vehicle force? Or are you just figuring breaking out windows to access the lock?

 

[sacp81170a]

And again, I explained that. The last time was "That gives them 2 opinions. Either they leave or you can search. " I've never said different from the beginning. You seem to want to interject using force.

Incorrect. Either they leave or you can have them arrested for trespassing. You still cannot search. You seem to be having trouble with the word "force". Force includes physical contact, verbal commands, restraint, etc. Touching someone over their objections is simple battery. Threatening someone with force is assault. Both are criminal acts. Again, if the person refuses you permission to touch him, how do you propose to conduct a search without committing a criminal act?

The Burge case is irrelevant to the question at hand since it involved a search of property over which the employer had control. Again, I ask for relevant cites. Any. One will do.

So far you're the only one advocating committing a criminal act.

?????? I'm telling you that searching a person or the property under his control without his consent is a criminal act. Whether it's laying hands on him without his consent (battery) or breaking out the windows of a locked vehicle (burglary of a motor vehicle), the logical conclusion of your "right" to conduct the search results in a criminal act.

I just checked with our corporate attorney (a former prosecutor), a local judge and my DA, and all agree that one private party searching another without consent would result at least in battery charges. You can't avoid the criminal side if the mutual relationship has been breached.

 

[ptmmatssc]

Since no cites were given , and after spending quite awhile trying to find the elusive "Burge v" case , I decided to just see what my state has to say about private property rights .

Section 5. Unreasonable searches prohibited. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without a special designation of the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized, nor without probable cause -- supported by oath or affirmation.

Chapter 93-C: INTERFERENCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS

A person may not, by force or threat of force, intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with, or intentionally attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with or intentionally oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, secured to that person by the Constitution of Maine or laws of the State or by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States. [1999, c. 51, §2 (amd).]

A violation of this chapter is a Class D crime. [1987, c. 515, §2 (new).]

§405. Burglary of motor vehicle

A. The person enters a motor vehicle, knowing that the person is not licensed or privileged to do so, with the intent to commit a crime therein. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or [2003, c. 711, Pt. A, §4 (new).]
B. The person violates paragraph A, and the person forcibly enters a motor vehicle that is locked. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime. [2003, c. 711, Pt. A, §4 (new).

Lemme see . A person commits the crime of "Burglary of motor vehicle" because A) they are not "licensed or privileged to do so" (exceptions being the previously mentioned contractual obligations) , B) the crime they intend on committing is "Chapter 93-C: INTERFERENCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS"
by taking away the rights against unreasonable search .

The constitution defends us from unreasonable searches by gov entities , but it does not give/grant/affirm any right of any individual to make their rights more important than anothers . If anyone could search a persons vehicle just because it's on their property there would be no reason to post signs or make it a requirement for employment .

 

[Ed Ames]

Incorrect. Either they leave or you can have them
arrested for trespassing. You still cannot search.

I agree with you but I will add a little bit.

Here's my take: There are actually three possible outcomes.

1) They refuse to leave and you have them arrested for trespassing (not refusing to be searched)
2) They leave
3) They voluntarily agree to be searched and you withdraw your demand that they leave the property.

In that third case a search is legal. Only in that third case. The right to search came not from some theory that you could search them because they were on your property. It came from the searched party trading/selling their consent in (partial) exchange for use of the property.

Now, if you made everyone sign a consent to search/hold harmless agreement as a condition of parking on your property you certainly could bust a window and search. You'd just need to show that signed document as your get out of jail card. Even then, if the person decided to drive away you couldn't block them from leaving or force them to submit to a search... at most you could sue them for breaching the contract.

I could be wrong of course but that's my understanding.

 

[sacp81170a]

If anyone could search a persons vehicle just because it's on their property there would be no reason to post signs or make it a requirement for employment .

Absolutely correct. However, remember that employment is mutual. If I quit, I am no longer an employee and no longer subject to a written or implied consent to search as a condition of employment. Simply put, if I want to continue to work for my employer, I let the search proceed. If I don't, then I can refuse to allow the search. Of course, I then have to leave or be charged with trespassing. The employer has no "right" to search my person or property under my control any further than I am willing to grant consent.

 

[isp2605]

The Burge case is irrelevant to the question at hand since it involved a search of property over which the employer had control. Again, I ask for relevant cites. Any. One will do.

You haven't read Burge have you or even know what it says do you? If you had then you wouldn't have written the above. The vehicle involved was owners property but the item searched in the vehicle, which is what the case was about, wasn't.

You seem to be having trouble with the word "force".

You seem to be having trouble wanting to interject "force". No one but you has even mentioned force. So far everyone has said, same as you, that the person has the option of leaving or complying with the search. If they elect to stay then they comply with the search. So far from what I've read that's all anyone on here has said. Who said anything about force? Just you.

 

[sacp81170a]

Who said anything about force? Just you.

You seem to think that people will automatically submit to a search because you believe it to be the property owner's right. If they do not submit, how do you propose to conduct the search?

 

[isp2605]

You seem to think that people will automatically submit to a search because you believe it to be the property owner's right. If they do not submit, how do you propose to conduct the search?

You are getting tiresomely repetitious and redundant. I'll quote my post for you one more time then I'm done with you because apparently you aren't reading. :banghead:
"That gives them 2 opinions. Either they leave or you can search."

 

[sacp81170a]

Sorry I'm being repetitious. So we're in agreement that a property owner has no "right" to search someone's person or the property under their control without their consent?

 

[isp2605]

So we're in agreement that a property owner has no "right" to search someone's person or the property under their control without their consent?

Your blanket statement is not correct.
What if the person isn't there as in the case of employee or school lockers? Do you think those are legal searches?

 

[sacp81170a]

What if the person isn't there as in the case of employee or school lockers? Do you think those are legal searches?

Absolutely, but then, that's property that's under the control of the property owner. It belongs to the school or employer and therefore is not under the control of the person.

 

[Ed Ames]

For the car...if the person has given consent (e.g. employee has signed an acknowledgement of an employee handbook giving consent) the search was conducted with good faith and would be fine. That is assuming that the search consent is a blanket consent and doesn't require the presence of the employee.

In the case of a locker it would depend on the terms under which the locker was provided. If the school, employer, or whatever provides both locker and lock and openly keeps the key/combination it is likely that a judge would consider the entire thing to be like a desk drawer... a possession of the school/employer being used by the student/employee. If the user of the locker was expected to provide their own lock and not provide anyone else with a key then chances are it would be viewed as private and the search would not be kosher (absent a previously given written consent -- same as the car).

 

[isp2605]

Absolutely, but then, that's property that's under the control of the property owner. It belongs to the school or employer and therefore is not under the control of the person.

The property inside the locker belongs to the employee/student, such as the book bag and the employer/landowner is not under their control any more than the vehicle in the lot. And that is what Burge said and others that it's OK to search the bag. See this is where your blanket statement of "So we're in agreement that a property owner has no "right" to search someone's person or the property under their control without their consent?" isn't so cut and dried? The bag was not under the control of the landowner but the bag is on the landowner's property. That's where it all gets a bit complicated for those who haven't received training in admin searches or worked extensively in that area. Your blanket statement doesn't work. IPTM has several courses in admin searches and employer rights if you care to take any of their courses.

 

[Ed Ames]

"Permission to search X" is more accurately "permission to search the contents of X". If you have permission to search the contents of a locker you have permission to search the contents of the locker.

It's like possession... if you have possession of a suitcase you have possession of the contents of the suitcase.

A valid question would be "what if the Burge Bag was locked?" Then it would be a matter of permissions. If you had explicit granted permision from the employee/student to search the locker's contents you would be able to unlock the bag (but you'd be responsible for damage done in forcing the lock). If you didn't have explicit permission but you had implied permission through possession (e.g. a company owned locker with a company owned lock, just like your company owned desk with company owned lock) you would not be be justified in opening a locked bag (which is a personal effect) contained in the locker without the permission of the bag's owner.

How does that match your training?

 

[isp2605]

How does that match your training?

You got it.

but you'd be responsible for damage done in forcing the lock

That's the reason a lot of LEOs are told they can't do it by their depts. It's not because of law but their dept policy and not wanting to pay for damage. Then you get a LEO who has no training and doesn't work in that area reads their policy and believes it's the law.

 

[sacp81170a]

Still doesn't address the OP's original question of whether an employer has a "right" to search a locked motor vehicle that doesn't belong to him. Specific cite, please.

Edited to add:

Just got off the phone with a friend of mine, a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Arkansas. He's not aware of any USSC case on locked motor vehicles on company property, but he's going to check on it for me as a favor. Also isn't aware of any "Burge v. ?????", but that's not conclusive. I'm looking for the cite you're trying to pass off as authoritative and I still can't find it.

So far, that's 4 of 4 lawyers, judges, prosecutors and law professors who think you're wrong, but what do they know?

 

[isp2605]

Burge was from 1985 or 86. If he is at all up on Administrative Law, and being a " professor of Constitutional Law" doesn't make him an expert in Admin Law, then he should be able to find it or he's not much of a professor or attorney.
And I told you I'm done with your tiresomely repetitiveness. Ed Admes has a very good grasp and understanding of it.
The point of using "force" in this case forcing entry means the landowner would be responsible for any damage. That's no different than a LEO using force to execute a search warrant. You damage it then you pay for it.
BTW, I'm out of here for a few days. I'm doing my part time retirement job - teaching attorneys on legal updates.

 

[packnrat]

yes, pending on weather or not a leo is there.

you might be stealing a pen from work.

 

[Treo]

Just to update , had a meeting W/ HR concerning the "friend" apparently I'm far from the only person who has "expressed concerns " re: this person H.R. all but DEMANDED that our complaints be put in writing & told us the format that would be used. apparently "the friend" is on very thin ice as it is. It appears that H.R. wants to get rid of this person and is looking for justification , this just may be the straw that broke the camels back. Will update as the drama unfolds

 

[riverdog]

No need, that's between you and HR. Dirty laundry/office politics -- this is a legal forum, not a gossip column.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enuf. Six pages of back-and-forth is more than enough.