Naturally, most private-sector corporations implement policing to deal with justice since they believe that the constitutional dimensions do not constrain their private police force. However, this creates a controversial impact, particularly on individual privacy rights. In this paper, the focus is to sketch and discuss the facts in Judge Edward Weinfeld’s opinion in Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., N. Y. C., E.T.C. Additionally, the paper will discuss implementing the new package control system at ACME Electronics Company to conclude whether the search program should be incorporated in the organizational context. In support of Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., N. Y. C., E.T.C. (1976), search programs are used to prevent theft from companies, which may positively impact ACME Electronics.
Based on the facts, the Plaintiff claims violation of individual privacy rights; this is the main issue the court needed to solve. As articulated in the Fourth Amendment, the constitution protects all individuals in their homes and public places from unreasonable intrusions into privacy. However, the hospital did not care about that; Bellevue assumed that workers have no reasonable privacy for personal belongings, which they carried to work.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Chenkin claims that the right to privacy; his position is based on Katz v. United States case. The Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment protects all persons in homes and public places from unreasonable intrusions into their privacy. However, the position advanced by the court was based on the three contentions. Chenkin was informed that even though the Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches, Bellevue still could conduct searches based on the strength of public necessity, nature of intrusion, and the search's efficacy.
The court decided that the search program implemented by Bellevue Hospital was reasonable. The hospital did not in any way, interfere with the Fourth Amendment. The purpose of the package control system was to prevent theft, and it targeted all employees. Bellevue respected employee individual privacy rights because the Plaintiff was not forced or grabbed by the security personnel during the search procedure. Furthermore, the inspection was randomly conducted meaning that no one was stigmatized or being suspected of theft. Bellevue search procedure was done procedural and did not result in violence.
As a practical matter, there is a likelihood of positive impact at ACME Electronic. Implementation of the program will reduce the theft rate because the program ACME will adopt is similar to Bellevue’s search program. This will strengthen the control system hence improve security operations. Berg (2018), highlighted that private companies often make decisions on subjects to achieve a legal purpose. However, this might not satisfy all subjects hence the need to conclude that legal influence demonstrates a dynamic aspect throughout successive and objective implementation.
The results of Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., N. Y. C. (1976) case are significant, particularly to the policy proposals targeting corporate executives. The search program controls any organisation's internal theft, which does not mean that employees do not enjoy their privacy rights as provided by the Fourth Amendment. According to Koster (2007), employers can implement workplace searches for a variety of reasons. For instance, when there theft or when an employee has committed a crime such as missing a company property. Because ACME Electronics was facing theft problems, the Fourth Amendment allows seizures and searchers within the company. In a nutshell, the case of the case should be considered by the ACME security director to prevent internal theft.
References
Berg, L. (2018). The establishment of legal rules as an element of the system of legal influence: an instrumental approach. Brics law journal , 5 (3). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-establishment-of-legal-rules-as-an-element-of-the-system-of-legal-influence-an-instrumental-approach
Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., N.Y.C., ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). https://www.leagle.com/decision/1979686479fsupp2071658#
Koster, P. R. (2007). Workplace searches by public employers and the Fourth Amendment. The Urban Lawyer , 75-84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23800894.pdf?casa_token=vJMy2Hu5AOYAAAAA:rWhiYP5_bU4ta7P2EjxL9pigJ96ggbyi-AZim7S7sEU5Vv32EmwR3fvS4BFB69pgUsUdCKXB3CnXaYx_0gAtaX6epGc9jsfskKHor7NftoShT-yVWsC_
