The companies that operate in the private sector are supposed to have a non-coercive initiative whose prominent role is to minimize property loss. The law does not give employers the authority to search for their employee's improper documentation of policies. Such is because the workers of an organization have a reasonable reliance on the issue of privacy. There is a fourth amendment in the United States constitution, which suggests employers have no right to violate the employees' privacy policy. However, an organization's privacy policy issue largely depends on whether the company is a public or private establishment. The paper aims to analyze the legal point of privacy that some of the private security entities face. The challenge for personal security is as far as searching their employees is on the picture. The issue's analysis will be based on Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSPITAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY, 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
With the fourth amendment in place, the United States Constitution protects the public employee more than those working in a private organization. Thus, a private entity may violate the legal issue of privacy and still not face the law courts. Regardless of whether the company is private or public, the employers need to create a policy on how general searches of the employees should be taking place (U.S. Const. n.d.). The system in creation by the employers must meet the legal requirements so that the company can reduce the loss of property (Fischer, 2013). In the case between Chenkin and Bellevue hospital center, the court aims at challenging the regulations that were provided by the healthcare facility. The hospital has clear documentation of the policy used to reduce property loss, such as towels and other medical tools. The policy states that all the bags and additional parcels that the employees are carrying will undergo a random screening before vacating the compound (Chenkin v. Bellevue Hosp. Ctr.). One of the chemist department assistants has refused to undergo the screening, and the hospital has the legal right to take disciplinary action. The chemist presents an argument stating that the screening does not follow the constitution, and the hospital should compensate him for the lost income. However, the court makes a ruling that the plaintiff will not receive any compensation as he violated the company's policy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The issue connected with the search policy that the court needs to resolve is if the hospital system is a violation of the fourth amendment in the United States constitution. The two agree that the court needs to measure the legality of the system for package control. To better understand the court's role on the matter, it is vital to consider the primary concern in the search procedure, which is the primary source of conflict. Bellevue was the one who made the package system to reduce the loss of hospital property. A memo on the screening policy was made available to all the employees in all thee departments. There are two main features of the package system. One is for the employees to go to the hospital with their bags but will undergo screening when they leave. Another feature is to leave their bags at a destined location and pick them when they leave (Chenkin v. Bellevue Hosp. Ctr.). Due to the high number of employees, not all underwent screening as it was done randomly to avoid discrimination. The hospital feels that the system is fair and reasonable, while the plaintiff feels it is a violation of privacy rights. Hence, the court has the role of establishing if the screening is per the fourth amendment.
Chenkin and the hospital advanced different claims to the court regarding the claim that the procedure was unconstitutional. According to Chenkin, the process is a violation of the fourth amendment of the U.S. constitution regarding employee's privacy. He stipulates that the policy grants the security officers the right to interfere with the employees' privacy. It does not assist the hospital in reducing the loss of its property. According to the amendment, searching without consent is a violation of the individual property (United States Courts., n.d.). On the other hand, the hospital suggests that the workers are not supposed to have any reasonable expectation towards privacy on some of the luggage they carry to work. Thus, are all the factors are put into consideration; the policy is valid, and the security officers did not need the plaintiff's permission for the inspection. However, Chenkin still feels that the hospital has the obligation of reimbursing him his salary for the one week that they did not pay him because of the issue.
The details and rationale of the court's ruling were after listening to a considering both sides' advanced argument. According to Judge, the policy for screening and inspection by the hospital is reasonable in addressing the issue of lost hospital equipment. The court decided that the hospital should not reimburse the plaintiff for the one-week salary in the ruling. The Judge disagrees with Chenkin's argument on the features of the policy. The judgment is rational as the hospital communicated the system to all the employees in all the departments through a memo. Also, the system had two options, and if Chenkin felt that his privacy is important, he would have left his bag in one of the designated stations. The idea that he entered the hospital premises with the bag indicates that he was aware and conversant with the policy. Thus, the violation of the system was intentional and, therefore, found guilty of insubordination.
From a practical perspective, the court's decision mostly impacts the security personnel's operation in many organizations. The main concern is on the search of the employees. From the case, both the private and the public organizations have a better understanding of having a written policy, and communication is done effectively and efficiently to all the employees. In case an employee complains, the first matter that the court will consider is if there was effective communication of the policy. Also, the court ruling is one way of ensuring that all employers stick to government regulations on the employees' issue of privacy. The main point is for employers to enforce the fourth amendment in the U.S. constitution. They need to have a policy that will show how security searches will occur and communicate the information to all the employees, be it in a private or public institution.
The case's outcomes will be crucial in the policy proposal that I will make in the corporate executive. The first issue to address is ensuring that I am making a policy proposal by the fourth amendment of the U.S. constitution. The second initiative will be to enhance communication in ACME Electronics. I will make sure that all the employees know there is s new policy where they will have to undergo a screening for the luggage they carry out of the company's premises. The system is transparent, and there are no controversies on which type of bags will undergo screening; I will make the policy more specific and detailed. The specification will be on naming the variety of packs required to go through a security check, such as the bags and any other carrier form. Also, it will be essential to mention the issue of body frisking in the policy. Such will make it clear as some of the perpetrators might be carrying the office types of equipment in their bodies and not luggage. Another issue of great importance forms the case study is on the subject of discrimination. No one will argue they are undergoing discrimination during the screening; I will ensure that the proposal clearly states everyone needs to go through the search process. There might be others who are driving, and the request will note the need for screening. The screening will be done by inspecting their trunks to see what they carry, and also, everyone will have to sign in and out of work. Gender is another very vital concern. One of the genders can refuse the search and argue that they are sexually harassed. Thus, there will be a point to address the policy proposal's matter to the corporate executive. Female security officers will search the ladies and the male security officers to search the male employees.
References
Chenkin v. Bellevue Hosp. Ctr., NYC. Etc., 479 F. Supp. 207 (United States District Court, S.D. New York September 20, 1979).
Fischer, R. (2013). Introduction to Security, 9 th Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann. Print.
U.S. Const. Fourth Amendment. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://constitution.congress.gov/contitution/amendment-4/. Accessed 16 September 2020.
United States Courts. (n.d.). What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational- outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0. Accessed 16 September 2020.
