Legal Challenges Confronting Private Security Operations: Administrative Searches

Introduction

            The issue related to workplace searches is an acute one in today’s business environment. The major purpose of this paper is to analyse the case Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), placing emphasis on Judge Edward Weinfeld’s opinion in this case. The assessment of the possibility to incorporate administrative research procedures in ACME Electronics allows drawing the proper conclusions on the need for incorporating an administrative, non-coercive, search program in the organisational context. This paper will explore the effectiveness of using and legalities of an administrative, non-coercive, care taking search program instituted by private security operatives to address real or perceived company losses resulting from significant internal employee theft. Actually, administrative searches in workplace are designed to prevent internal employee theft. In the proposed scenario, the Corporate Security Director for ACME Electronics bears responsibility for ensuring prevention of employee theft to avoid losses. The implementation of an effective administrative search program at ACME Electronics guarantees positive outcomes. The evaluation of the court decision in case Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) might have a positive impact on the ACME facility’s security operations because of the valuable advice provided by the court. The results of this court decision can be used in the administrative search policy proposals made to the corporate executives.

            In this case, the Plaintiff is Paul CHENKIN, while the Defendants are BELLEVUE HOSPITAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPITALS CORPORATION and Anne P. Ryan, in her official capacity as Director of Personnel Management of the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation. In order to reduce pilferage, a large urban hospital launched a package control system combined with random spot inspections. Prior to these initiatives, the organization informed employees about the new policy, putting advertisements on the walls of corridors and offices of the hospital, including labs, departments and elevators. There were also three parcel check locations established in the hospital to allow the owners to store their bags and parcels. These personal belongings were not inspected. The Plaintiff in this case lost his average wages for a week for being “insubordinate” as he  wilfully failed to comply with the established rules and requirements of the accepted package control system.  

Description of the issues related to the search program the court needed to resolve

            It is necessary to analyse the issues related to the search program the court needed to resolve in order to draw relevant conclusions. Using the key facts of the case, the Plaintiff’s claims that Bellevue’s policy is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution can be assessed as invalid. The Plaintiff claims that “the system authorized unreasonable intrusions into his privacy, that are made without compelling justification and that achieve no discernible reduction of pilferage” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). However, Bellevue assumes that “employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the packages they bring to work; that, when viewed in the totality of circumstances, its regulation is reasonable; and that in any event the plaintiff impliedly consented to be searched” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

Explanation of the positions advanced by Chenkin and Bellevue to the court regarding Chenkin’s claim that the hospital’s package control system was unconstitutional

            The positions that Chenkin and Bellevue advanced to the court regarding Chenkin’s claim that the hospital’s package control system was unconstitutional can be explained in different ways. The Plaintiff’s position is based on criticism of the hospital’s policy which requires inspecting the contents of his bag upon his leaving the workplace. It constitutes an invasion of privacy rights.  of privacy. The Plaintiff ‘s position is based on the case, Katz v. United States, in which the US Supreme Court held that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, from unreasonable intrusions into their privacy by the government” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

            As a matter of fact, Bellevue’s position advanced to the court regarding Chenkin’s claim that the hospital’s package control system was unconstitutional is easy to explain. “It is axiomatic that the Fourth Amendment forbids only those warrantless searches deemed unreasonable” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). There is a need for determining which particular searches are forbidden by the law. Due to balancing “the public interest against the Fourth Amendment interest, it is possible to consider three factors like “the strength of the public necessity for the search; the efficacy of the search; and the degree and nature of the intrusion upon the individual” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). The search program adopted at Bellevue is effective and reasonable because these methods are  non-coercive and do not have offensive impact on employees. The Plaintiff was informed of the searching procedures. The reasonableness of the hospital’s package control system is obvious.

Detailed description of the court’s ruling and rationale

            In this case, the court ruled that the package control system adopted by the hospital was fair and  reasonable. The method used by the hospital is assessed as “minimally intrusive method of efficaciously coping with a serious public problem” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). This fact means that the Bellevue’s package control system is not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The court considered the circumstances of the case and balanced the key factors provided by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 

Detailed description of the important features of the Bellevue search procedure cited by the court in rejecting Chenkin’s claims

            The important features of the Bellevue search procedure cited by the court in rejecting Chenkin’s claims are few. First of all, the hospital’s idea was to avoid the coercive and offensive impacts on employees. Secondly, the hospital warned personnel about the possibility of conducting a search procedure. Thirdly, the Bellevue search procedure targeted all employees. The Plaintiff “was not “grabbed” by the security guards; indeed, no one attempted either to touch or to search his person” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). Fourthly, the  Bellevue search procedure was based on random selection. This fact means that the Plaintiff “was not stigmatized by the suspicion of wrongdoing” (Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). Finally, the Bellevue search procedure was based on the limited scope of the intended search. The search procedure did not foster any violent actions or threats.  

Evaluation of how the court decision might impact security operations

            Based on the Chenkin v. Bellevue Hospital court case, the implementation of an administrative search program at the ACME Electronics facility is the best option to prevent internal thefts. As a practical matter, this court decision might impact security operations because the administrative search program adopted by the ACME Electronics should be similar to the Bellevue search procedure. It is possible to strengthen control and make security operations more flexible. According to researchers, “the legality of a workplace search is not governed by any specific law” (Hoekstra, 1996, p. 127).

 The law that may be applied to the cases of workplace searches is dependent upon various factors and circumstances. The Court considered the jurisdiction that allows making a claim as well as  employee status (e.g. public, private or union).

Explanation of how the results of this case would be used in any policy proposals made to the corporate executives

            The results of this case would be used in any policy proposals made to the corporate  executives because of the significance of the court decision. According to researchers, the issue regarding the use of  workplace searches to stop internal thefts is crucial to address by organizations. Employees can enjoy some degree of protection in the workplace fostered by the Fourth Amendment, but this degree is “not the traditional standard of protection” (Cortelyou, 1987, p. 755). There is a need for developing policy proposals that will address the issues that contribute to conducting workplace searches. The reasonableness of workplace searches should be proved by the factors that affect the organization’s success. Hence, workplace searches should be used to address the challenges faced by the organization, enhance employee discipline and increase productivity.

Conclusion

            Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the facts of the case Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) and Judge Edward Weinfeld’s opinion should be taken into consideration by the Corporate Security Director for ACME Electronics while developing administrative search programs to prevent internal theft. It is necessary to provide training of security officers to avoid violation of human rights during search procedures in the workplace. An effective administrative search program will help to prevent substantial losses faced by the organization in the future. 

References

Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979686479FSupp207_1658.xml/CHENKIN%20v.%20BELLEVUE%20HOSP.%20CTR.,%20N.%20Y.%20C.,%20ETC

Cortelyou, P. S. (1987). “Applying a Reasonableness Standard to Government Office Searches – O’Connor v. Ortega,” U. Tol. L. Rev., 19: 755.

Hoekstra, D. (1996). “Workplace Searches – A Legal Overview,” Labour Law Journal, Chicago, 47(2): 127.

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person