Search at work Questions:

[quesogrande]

My employer would not like us to carry in the building, but can my employer say i can't have a weapon on property even if I leave it in my car?

My employer has expressed that vehicles "on property" can be searched is that a 2 nd amendement issue?

Any thoughts on this?

[Punisher84]

My employer would not like us to carry in the building, but can my employer say i can't have a weapon on property even if I leave it in my car?

My employer has expressed that vehicles "on property" can be searched is that a 2 nd amendement issue?

Any thoughts on this?

Private property. You don't have to give consent to search, but then you'll most likely be fired.

I worked for FedEx and they had the same rule. You didn't have to let them search, but then they'd just fire you.

There was a law passed in Florida that challenged this type of rule, Disney fired a guy for it. I think he's appealing or suing now.

[strickj]

Yeah,your property is your property,regardless of where its parked.If they did search your car without consent,then that would be a crime.

However,like he said,Tn is a will to work state which means you can be fired for anything,at anytime,for any reason,so refusing to allow a search might just get you fired.

If its likely for them to want to search,then park in a neighboring lot,street,or wherever.

AIA,just keep yer doors locked,and just dont give them a reason to want to search.

[Guest nraforlife]

See your HR policies

[DaveTN]

There is no pat answer on any search; only opinions and case law.

<O:p</O:p

However… Your employer can ban items such as firearms, cell phones, lighters, tobacco products, or circus animals if they choose. You can be fired for violating those policies. They can also establish a policy that all vehicles entering their property are subject to search…. And many, many companies do.

<O:p</O:p

For it to be a 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment issue the state of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Tennessee </st1:State>would first have to recognize that you have a constitutional right to carry a firearm. They absolutely do not recognize that; quite the opposite.

[quesogrande]

I guess my question is, if the rule is no weapons on the property is have a weapon in my car that is parked on "there property" having a weapon on there property? If the weapon is more for my commute, is that not limiting my rights.

[Guest bkelm18]

I guess my question is, if the rule is no weapons on the property is have a weapon in my car that is parked on "there property" having a weapon on there property? If the weapon is more for my commute, is that not limiting my rights.

Well if the parking lot is their property, then yes, you have a weapon on their property.

[quesogrande]

I wish they would put some gas or change the oil in "there property" ... They are not responsible for loss or damages to cars on "there property" but yet they want to control whats is contained in them ... If I pay the payment is my car not my property?

[DaveTN]

I guess my question is, if the rule is no weapons on the property is have a weapon in my car that is parked on "there property" having a weapon on there property?

Yes.

Can they fire you over it? Yes.

Can they legally search your car? Probably (but that’s a moot point unless you want to spend the money to find out).

Will they forcibly search your car? Probably not; they can just fire you and order you off the property.

<O:p</O:p

There are legitimate reasons for not allowing firearms (or anything else that produces a spark) in the workplace; combustible atmospheres, etc. Most food processing plants don’t allow you to take items like cell phones or jewelry in; I would guess that includes guns.

<O:p</O:p

The point is that your employer is doing what they think is best for their business. Have you ask them if you can have a gun in your car in the parking lot? Because you said they would like you to not carry in the building. The parking lot is not the building; but I would guess they would give you an answer.

If the weapon is more for my commute, is that not limiting my rights.

What rights?

Edited January 4, 2009 by DaveTN

[DaveTN]

but yet they want to control whats is contained in them ... If I pay the payment is my car not my property?

Certainly it is your property. Private vehicles are the property of all <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State><ST1:pTennessee</st1:State> residents while they are driving them on the streets; but 97% of the citizens would be arrested if a loaded firearm is found in them.

Carrying a gun in this state is not a right.

[quesogrande]

2nd Amendment Rights... and the state said I can Carry it... I guess I can park and walk...

[Punisher84]

2nd Amendment Rights... and the state said I can Carry it... I guess I can park and walk...

A right doesn't have limitations. Unfortunately your "right" is now more of a privilege.

I don't think it's right, but it's a thing to take up with your legislators if you'd like it changed.

[Guest canynracer]

If the parking lot is on company property, your car is on company property. As Dave stated, they can request the search, but probably not force it without good cause or a cop and a warrant...but I am sure you would be fired for failure to consent.

If you dont want them in "your" property, then dont put your property on theirs

park across the street.

I dont carry to work because the company lot is a secured lot, owned by the company. I drive to and from work only, with no stops in between.

I dont want to walk that far, especially in the cold and rain, and I dont want to risk not being able to see my car, especially if my gun is in it.

[midtennchip]

First, don't confuse a Constitutional right with private employer issues. Constitutional rights apply to government actions, not private party actions. If your employer is not a government entity, the 2nd Amendment doesn't come into play.

Second, just because the gun is contained within your personal property does not mean it is not on the employer's property. If you carry the gun in your pocket, it's contained in your property as well, but I don't think you would argue that the enployer doesn't have the right to prohibit that.

Most of the prior comments are correct. The employer could not forcibly search your car without the potential for a lawsuit (although they would argue that you consented to any search because you parked there after being notified that vehicles are subject to search). It is up to you whether you risk you job over it. Will they actually search? You would know better than any of us.

[Guest Astra900]

2nd Amendment Rights... and the state said I can Carry it... I guess I can park and walk...

Dang right, buy an umbrella, and park across the street.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

First, don't confuse a Constitutional right with private employer issues. Constitutional rights apply to government actions, not private party actions. If your employer is not a government entity, the 2nd Amendment doesn't come into play.

I see this a lot, and I'll never understand where this rumor got started.

Consider a surveillance camera at your place of employment. There are clear standards regarding the placement of cameras, by your employer, even on their private property. The Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution is clearly implicated. Likewise with polygraph testing or toxicology testing.

All sorts of First Amendment decisions are on the books that don't involve state actors at all.

Second, just because the gun is contained within your personal property does not mean it is not on the employer's property. If you carry the gun in your pocket, it's contained in your property as well, but I don't think you would argue that the enployer doesn't have the right to prohibit that.

The question presented is not regarding whether or not your employer may or may not forbid the bearing of arms. The question is in regards to a search.

What if they wish to allege that you are concealing some contraband in your rectum? Are you going to suggest that your employer may perform a body cavity search, or, further, that they would be allowed to terminate you for not consenting to a body cavity search?

Your body is also your property. That's why when a police officer materially interferes with your liberty, you are, for Fourth Amendment purposes, seized. Your person is the seized property.

Most of the prior comments are correct. The employer could not forcibly search your car without the potential for a lawsuit (although they would argue that you consented to any search because you parked there after being notified that vehicles are subject to search). It is up to you whether you risk you job over it. Will they actually search? You would know better than any of us.

"At will" issues are also a source of great confusion. It's not an absolute right of a private party (the employer) to simply place whatever demands they see fit on their employees in exchange for continued employment. When an employer disparages civil rights, as determined by some court, there will be consequences. The idea that an employer may simply fire you for refusing a search is inaccurate. They might come up with something else, but that's another issue.

There's a body of case law somewhere. I'll see what I can dig up.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[midtennchip]

I see this a lot, and I'll never understand where this rumor got started.

Consider a surveillance camera at your place of employment. There are clear standards regarding the placement of cameras, by your employer, even on their private property. The Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution is clearly implicated. Likewise with polygraph testing or toxicology testing.

All sorts of First Amendment decisions are on the books that don't involve state actors at all.

. . .

What if they wish to allege that you are concealing some contraband in your rectum? Are you going to suggest that your employer may perform a body cavity search, or, further, that they would be allowed to terminate you for not consenting to a body cavity search?

. . .

"At will" issues are also a source of great confusion. It's not an absolute right of a private party (the employer) to simply place whatever demands they see fit on their employees in exchange for continued employment. When an employer disparages civil rights, as determined by some court, there will be consequences. The idea that an employer may simply fire you for refusing a search is inaccurate. They might come up with something else, but that's another issue.

. . .

There's a body of case law somewhere. I'll see what I can dig up.

Abominable, the "rumor" gets started in every law school Constitutional Law class in the country (including mine). The only Constitutional Amendment that prohibits purely private action is the 13th Amendment. You can review the first sentence of Section 21.1 of the treatise linked below. You can also review the case citations at the law review article (footnote #3) in the second link below:

http://vlex.com/vid/453379

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1118532

For a quick and dirty summary of the Constitutional analysis issues, the following link is also excellent:

http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/constitutionallaw/section5.php

Second, I do practice employment law. A few of my clients have to conduct searches from time to time. The employers are NOT limited by Constitutional issues. They could be subject to assault or trespass actions for some searches, but the Constitution does not prohibit any searches by a private employer. An employer (absent a contract) can fire you for any reason that is not prohibited by law (e.g., discrimination).

Edited January 6, 2009 by midtennchip

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Abominable, the "rumor" gets started in every law school Constitutional Law class in the country (including mine). The only Constitutional Amendment that prohibits purely private action is the 13th Amendment. You can review the first sentence of Section 21.1 of the treatise linked below. You can also review the case citations at the law review article (footnote #3) in the second link below:

http://vlex.com/vid/453379

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1118532

For a quick and dirty summary of the Constitutional analysis issues, the following link is also excellent:

http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/constitutionallaw/section5.php

Second, I do practice employment law. A few of my clients have to conduct searches from time to time. The employers are NOT limited by Constitutional issues. They could be subject to assault or trespass actions for some searches, but the Constitution does not prohibit any searches by a private employer. An employer (absent a contract) can fire you for any reason that is not prohibited by law (e.g., discrimination).

Alright. I'll defer to your expertise.

So what about issues such a free association, joining a union, and collective bargaining? Are those not First Amendment issues, along with the right to work? I understand that the government has their fingers in that, but it's clear they've acted for or against either a union or a private employer on many occasions.

What case/s are controlling regarding a non-governmental employer placing cameras in an employee restroom?

Runyon v. McCray.

EDIT: now I can't tell what's implicated in Runyon. Is this a First, Thirteenth, or Fourteenth issue?

I'll take all the help I can get. I'm sure you'll agree I need it.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[midtennchip]

Alright. I'll defer to your expertise.

So what about issues such a free association, joining a union, and collective bargaining? Are those not First Amendment issues, along with the right to work? I understand that the government has their fingers in that, but it's clear they've acted for or against either a union or a private employer on many occasions.

What case/s are controlling regarding a non-governmental employer placing cameras in an employee restroom?

Runyon v. McCray.

EDIT: now I can't tell what's implicated in Runyon. Is this a First, Thirteenth, or Fourteenth issue?

I'll take all the help I can get. I'm sure you'll agree I need it.

Sorry for the delay. Long day at work.

Bathroom video -- the most significant case that I know of is Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways. While that was a "privacy" case, it was under a California state privacy statute (i.e., not a U.S. Constitutional privacy issue). There also were some California constitutional issues, but those are different than U.S. Constitutional issues.

Runyon v.McCray -- the plaintiffs sued for discrimination (under a federal nondiscrimination statute) and defendants argued that the federal statute (i.e., "state action") did not apply to them because of their freedom of association. While a Constitutional issue arose in a private party case, the issue was whether the Constitution prevented the application of the federal statute.

Generally, when you see a Constitutional issue raised in cases between private parties, it is the law (not the parties' actions) under which the lawsuit is filed that is challenged on Constitutional grounds. It is the application of the law ("state action") that is subject to a Constitutional challenge.

In relation to the original question in this thread, the employee would not have a Constitutional basis on which to challenge the employer's action. The employee might have a tort action (e.g., assault, invasion of privacy, etc.), but not a Constitutional action.

[Guest tcampbell]

I park on the street...I avoid the employer parking lot. I can see my vehicle from the window where I park also.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Sorry for the delay. Long day at work.

Bathroom video -- the most significant case that I know of is Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways. While that was a "privacy" case, it was under a California state privacy statute (i.e., not a U.S. Constitutional privacy issue). There also were some California constitutional issues, but those are different than U.S. Constitutional issues.

Runyon v.McCray -- the plaintiffs sued for discrimination (under a federal nondiscrimination statute) and defendants argued that the federal statute (i.e., "state action") did not apply to them because of their freedom of association. While a Constitutional issue arose in a private party case, the issue was whether the Constitution prevented the application of the federal statute.

Generally, when you see a Constitutional issue raised in cases between private parties, it is the law (not the parties' actions) under which the lawsuit is filed that is challenged on Constitutional grounds. It is the application of the law ("state action") that is subject to a Constitutional challenge.

In relation to the original question in this thread, the employee would not have a Constitutional basis on which to challenge the employer's action. The employee might have a tort action (e.g., assault, invasion of privacy, etc.), but not a Constitutional action.

No problem. I appreciate the responses, and I appreciate you not rubbing my face in it.

One more question, if you don't mind. I work for the railroad. Our Special Agents are also company officials. That is, in addition to their law enforcement responsibilities, they may direct my behavior in ways that aren't at all related to the administration of justice. For example, I couldn't ask one of the agents if I was free to go and then walk away if they said I was not being detained in relation to a criminal investigation. That is to say, they don't need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to interfere with my liberty. They're essentially my boss as well as being cops. Given their dual authorities, would a search related to a company prohibition against firearms by one of these agents implicate the Fourth Amendment specifically, or would it be a private employer/employee issue? I was guessing it would depend on whether or not they were investigating an alleged violation of company rules, or a violation of the law.

If you don't know off the top of your head, don't worry with it. I'd hate to ask for free legal advice that involved poring over case law.

[midtennchip]

AB, that is a good question. Railroad companies often are regulated by the federal government and give rise to different issues than most employers (BTW, the Constitutional issue MIGHT come back up on this type of situation). Unfortunately, I do not know off the top of my head. However, you've got me interested now, so I may do some quick research. If I come up with anything, I'll let you know via PM.

[tennessee01tacoma]

I have another simple maybe even stupid question. I live 30 min from where i work, i routinely go to a gunshop that is only about 5 miles from where i work. i never have a gun loaded in my truck. but is it not legal to transport an unloaded and locked(in case, action, or trigger lock) in your vehicle. with ammo in a seperate locked compartment? (ie toolbox?) i don't get them out or even tell anyone i have it. i know i could get into trouble for a loaded firearm in any state of storage in my truck but how are you supposed to transport a rifle legally. i have never had any trouble before just want to make sure im doing the right thing.

Edited January 8, 2009 by tennessee01tacoma

[Guest canynracer]

Totally seperate...leave ammo locked in one compartment, (NOT IN MAGS) and gun seperate...make every attempt to show that you cannot easliy "go armed"

but if you have a permit, the above only counts for long guns....for your handgun, lock and load

you will be fine.

Edited January 8, 2009 by canynracer

[tennessee01tacoma]

i don't have any handguns yet im only 20