Can you (or Mr. Youprop’s Supervisor) search Youprop’s personal vehicle parked in the Company lot for digital evidence?
No. The situation that has been developed after the incidence with Mr. Youprop is a matter that needs to be handled delicately because of the possibility of application of the 4th amendment. Privacy, particularly in areas of work has been an issue that is steadily gaining attention from the justice system. More people are currently concerned with matters of employee searches, be it their personal property or their workspaces. Workers such as Mr., Youprop are usually searched when they are suspected of theft. One of the best ways to handle this issue with minimal law infringement would be, first to confirm if the company rules allow for the employees to expect privacy. This provision would allow me or Mr. Youprop’s supervisor to act judiciously. In doing so, I will have to ensure that I cause no damage to the employee’s personal property, which in this case is the automobile.
There might be cases where there seem to be loopholes in the law regarding this issue, however if the 4th amendment is to be considered, then the correct channel would be to report the suspected robbery of intellectual property and wait for the law enforcers to conduct the search. Suspicion of theft will not justify our invasion of Mr. Youprop’s privacy, as supported by the jurisprudence Hykes v. Hughes, (2003). The Texas Workforce Commission (2011) however asserts that work policies give me the right to search the vehicle as long as it is packed within the company premises. Although since the internal rules are not clear on this policy, I will have to stealth through the investigation process.
If evidence of intellectual property is found, Makestuff Company may seek to pursue criminal prosecution. Can Mr. Youprop’s supervisor direct local police to search his personal vehicle, which is parked in the company parking lot?
Yes. Since the vehicle does not belong to the company and it private property of Mr. Yourprop, they right channel of seeking justice would be to file for the criminal prosecution, which would demand that the officers, after being directed by the supervisor, gather evidence of intellectual theft against the accused. The supervisor also had a right to direct the police officers to the vehicle because that is the only way that the firm can obtain the evidence legally without the risk of becoming a defendant in the future. The firm has enough basis warranting the search for proof of the intellectual theft. The nature of the crime allows for the supervisor to start the investigation in the car because it is possible that the evidence could have been there. In this case, the chances of infringing on his fourth amendment rights are minimal (Perez & Perez, 2011). There have been disagreements on how to handle such a situation although the case law O’Connor vs. Ortega (1984) acts a guide because it considers both sides of the company. This means that it advocates for realization of the employer’s need for search, while also considering that the accused primarily has to a right to effect the fourth amendment. The case was ruled that the worker had a right to reasonable expectation of privacy however, there are some of the components of the company where the right is revoked.
Can you search Yourprop’s assigned locker in the Company’s on-site gym for digital evidence?
No. searching the locker is beyond the protection that would be accrued to me if I were to explore the loopholes of the rights that Yourprop has as a citizen. Since the locker is expected to be locked by the employee, then he has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if space belongs to the company. The case law K-Mart v Trotti (1984) demonstrates a scenario where the locker belongs to the firm but the lock belonged to the employee and the internal policies regarding such searches were not clear. The Corporation lost and had to pay about $100,000 in the form of punitive damages to the employee.
As in the previous cases, the situation would, however, be different if Makestuff Company had provided its employees with a policy in relation to this issue. It would be alright for me to search the locker in this scenario because the firm would have specified that it reserved the right conduct necessary searches when it comes to cases of suspicions of compliance to rules against vices such as theft of the organization’s property. The fact that the locker belongs to the company would permit me to search for digital evidence in Yourprop’s locker. It is also in this sense that O’Connor vs. Ortega (1984) applies.
Can you use a master key to search Yourprop’s locked desk after he left the premises for digital evidence?
Yes. The supervisor can check the locker for evidence whether the lock is Mr. Yourprop’s or not. There has to exist a balance between the worker’s right to privacy and the employer’s right to know, considering the circumstances. The first fact is that the locker belongs to the firm, especially since the worker is no longer a part of the enterprise. Furthermore, the extent to the expectation of privacy is not always clear when it comes to lockers owned by the company, meaning that the corporation can always argue in its favor against the rights that Mr. Yourprop has. The supervisor has to be careful not to exceed the limits of his right because the doctrine rules that the only the area concerned should be accessed and after the evidence is retrieved, the search on the absent worker’s personal space should be stopped.
There is a page in the Company’s “Employee Handbook” that states that anything brought onto the Company’s property, including the employees themselves, is subject to random search for items belonging to the Company. There is a space for the employee to acknowledge receipt of this notice. Mr. Yourprop has a copy of the handbook but never signed the page. Does that matter? Explain.
Signing the handbook is an important act because it means that the workers agree to the terms and conditions of the company regarding the specifics listed. The fact that Mr. Yourprop did not sign it does not matter because the manual is more of an informational tool and not a contract. As such, it can be concluded that the fact that the accused had a copy and was a consenting employee means that he was subject to the policies regarding the searches. Despite the presence of the handbook, the supervisor still has the right to inspect the property of Mr. Yourprop. Legitimacy in this case is quite difficult to determine. If the matter reaches to the level of seeking formal legal action, the burden would lie in providing factual data regarding the search process (Midwest New Media, 2016).
Makestuff Company uses a security checkpoint at the entrance to the building. A sign adjacent to the checkpoint states that the purpose of the checkpoint is for security staff to check for weapons or other materials that may be detrimental to the working environment or employee safety. Screening is casual and usually consists of verification of an employee’s Company ID card. Can security staff at this checkpoint be directed to open Mr. Yourprop’s briefcase and seize any potential digital evidence?
The presence of the information in the employment handbook reduces the effectiveness of Mr. Yourprop’s fourth amendment right, however, there are some limits that the employer cannot exceed. The search does not seem to be an invasive one since the staff shall be looking for a particular type of evidence. Because of this exemption from the doctrine, the workers can check Mr. Yourprop’s briefcase and retrieve the necessary evidence if any. This property can be controversial considering it is considered private, however, in this case, the company has reasonable suspicion to trigger the inspection. The seizure, if any, will have to be conducted in the most civil manner to avoid any damages, otherwise the firm would be prosecuted criminally for second-degree trespassing.
References
Cases
Hykes v. Hughes, 835 A. 2d 382 (Pa. Super. 2003)
K-Mart Corp. v. Trotti, 677 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ refused n.r.e.)
O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987)
Websites
Midwest New Media. (2016). Workplace Searches. Workplace Fairness. Retrieved from https://www.workplacefairness.org/workplace-searches
Perez, K. and Perez, N. (2011). Workplace Privacy: Balancing Employees’ Rights with their Employer’s Right to Know. Retrieved from http://www.codla.org/conference/PrivacyintheWorkplace.pdf
Texas Workforce Commission. (2011). Searches at Work – Legal Issues to Consider. Retrieved from http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/searches_at_work_legal_issues_to_consider.html
