No guns at my work.

[Bill B]

I didn't say to quit, just keep looking....

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Bill of Rights restricts the government. The 4th amendment wouldn't apply. I can't imagine your boss breaking into your car. You are going to either let him in willingly or you won't. Same with your hidden safe mounted under your dash.

Sorry, Fourth Amendment in that the employer could not enter the car or the lockbox without the owner's key, so sought an officer and/or warrant to do so. No warrant would issue as no law had been broken or alleged to be broken. At that point, the employer, frustrated by that pesky Consitution, would fire the employee.

It would be up to a review board whether or not the employee was terminated with or without cause, IIUC.

Once again, my apologies for not being more clear.

Bill

 

[Beau]

And there lies the problem. I signed a form consenting to search. I understand that they still can't enter without my permission. If I refuse though I am instantly terminated. I don't want to be terminated therefore I can not have a firearm in my vehicle.

BOR, I understand your feeling about government intrusion with the parking lot bill but I think the parking lot bill was a good idea though. Employers wouldn't be albe to get away with banning religous items kept in a vehicle or with banning certain bumber stickers and such. Why should they be able to ban firearms?

 

[ljadayton]

BOR, I understand your feeling about government intrusion with the parking lot bill but I think the parking lot bill was a good idea though. Employers wouldn't be albe to get away with banning religous items kept in a vehicle or with banning certain bumber stickers and such. Why should they be able to ban firearms?

They shouldn't be able to. But they will as long as they can get away with it. I personally LOVE the idea of letting them search the lockbox multiple times. Get it out of their system and move on. The other other option there is to make sure the lock box is NEVER seen, which, depending on what you're driving and what you're locking up, is easily doable. It just depends on how committed they are to finding a firearm in an employee's vehicle.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Does the consent form extend to locked containers within the car? Does it require you to surrender the keys? Does it allow them to search your person for the keys? What if it has a combination or biometric lock, can they compel you to open it for them? I think I already know the answers, but I'm just looking for potential loop holes.

 

[rugertoter]

Boy, this thread is getting deep.

 

[.40caltrucker]

Just for fun take some gunpowder and sprinkle a little in the trunk, glove box, and under the seats to see if their dog will pick it up. If so they would get annoyed with your car fast.

I have worked for employers with this kind of policy, and never heard of them actually doing it. I have also been to a lot of different places picking up and delivering loads, most of them have the no firearms signs and the signs saying all vehicles are subject to search. Never seen or heard of that happening either.

 

[INGunGuy]

Wow... yea that is another reason i love my job. Hell, we all carry at work. I regularly carry into the Kentucky state capitol building, the Kentucky State Police Headquarters and other state police posts. I am NOT a LEO just a Network Engineer for the Commonwealth of KY.

INGunGuy

 

[rangerobber]

I guess if you are on private property you need to follow the wishes of the property owner.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Sorry, Fourth Amendment in that the employer could not enter the car or the lockbox without the owner's key, so sought an officer and/or warrant to do so. No warrant would issue as no law had been broken or alleged to be broken. At that point, the employer, frustrated by that pesky Consitution, would fire the employee.

It would be up to a review board whether or not the employee was terminated with or without cause, IIUC.

Once again, my apologies for not being more clear.

Bill

Rambone is right (that's right, I said it). The 4th Amendment restricts the government, not your employer. An employer or property owner is free to demand to search anything they want while you are on their property. Your sole response is to refuse to enter the property or leave the property without any search having been conducted.

It sounds like allowing a search is a condition of the OPs employment, and that failing to allow a search is a breach of the employment contract and grounds for termination. I'm not a labor attorney, but it would seem as though you would have little recourse in the event you failed to meet the commitments imposed by the terms of employment.

I am also against the parking lot law. I think it is an unnatural abrigation of a property owner's rights and an unnecessary interference in the employer / employee relationship. If you don't want to follow your employer's rules you should quit.

My guys all carry guns BTW. Lots of them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Rambone is right (that's right, I said it). The 4th Amendment restricts the government, not your employer. An employer or property owner is free to demand to search anything they want while you are on their property. Your sole response is to refuse to enter the property or leave the property without any search having been conducted.

It sounds like allowing a search is a condition of the OPs employment, and that failing to allow a search is a breach of the employment contract and grounds for termination. I'm not a labor attorney, but it would seem as though you would have little recourse in the event you failed to meet the commitments imposed by the terms of employment.

I am also against the parking lot law. I think it is an unnatural abrigation of a property owner's rights and an unnecessary interference in the employer / employee relationship. If you don't want to follow your employer's rules you should quit.

My guys all carry guns BTW. Lots of them.

You're both correct on the point as I originally wrote it. My phrasing was clumsy, though my meaning was accurate. The 4A does not directly impact nor restrict the employer. The 4A would, however, prevent a judge from issuing a search warrant to a LEO to do the employer's bidding and forcibly search the car.

When talking to the unemployment folks, "I wanted to preserve my Fourth Amendment right to privacy." sounds a lot better than, "My employer had a policy against guns in private vehicles and I had mine there anyway."

Let's face it, the unemployment folks probably are not Constitutional scholars in the context of the 4A's applicability to private citizens vs. government.

Should we still strive for accuracy? Of course, because any lapse will be pounced upon... It's funny how they don't seem to know the Constitution until we misstate something. The ideal solution would be to "convert" the employer. If that's not possible, then let them get their fill of "OHMYGODHE'SGOTAGUNINTHATBOX!!!!oh, wait, no he doesn't..." lather, rinse, repeat...or the whole "dogs sniffing out gunpowder with no casings, no guns, no nothing in the car" (though I think that one more risky) and do as you wish.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You're both correct on the point as I originally wrote it. My phrasing was clumsy, though my meaning was accurate. The 4A does not directly impact nor restrict the employer. The 4A would, however, prevent a judge from issuing a search warrant to a LEO to do the employer's bidding and forcibly search the car.

When talking to the unemployment folks, "I wanted to preserve my Fourth Amendment right to privacy." sounds a lot better than, "My employer had a policy against guns in private vehicles and I had mine there anyway."

Let's face it, the unemployment folks probably are not Constitutional scholars in the context of the 4A's applicability to private citizens vs. government.

Should we still strive for accuracy? Of course, because any lapse will be pounced upon... It's funny how they don't seem to know the Constitution until we misstate something. The ideal solution would be to "convert" the employer. If that's not possible, then let them get their fill of "OHMYGODHE'SGOTAGUNINTHATBOX!!!!oh, wait, no he doesn't..." lather, rinse, repeat...or the whole "dogs sniffing out gunpowder with no casings, no guns, no nothing in the car" (though I think that one more risky) and do as you wish.

Blessings,
Bill

I like you a lot Bill but you're just plain wrong. The 4th Amendment would absolutely not prevent a judge from signing a warrant. As long as probable cause was established, a judge would be well within their discretion to sign a warrant presented to them. For example if a drug dog alerted to an employee's vehicle parked on company property, that alert could be used as probable cause by the police to get a warrant. That search would be well within the bounds of "the employer's bidding" as you've put it. Same with an explosives dog. If there is probable cause a warrant can be issued and executed. It doesn't matter who initiated the investigation or whose behalf or benefit it may inure.

I agree that a judge would be unlikely to issue a warrant just so an employer could poke around in an employee's car. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the 4th Amendment, other than probable cause must be demonstated.

I don't think anyone in the unemployement process would be the slightest bit impressed if you said you wanted to preserve your 4th Amendment rights and would not submit to a search of your vehicle as you had agreed in order to become, or remain, employed. Why is irrelevent, as long as the request was reasonable on your employer's part. Employers require employee (and visitor) vehicle searches for a bevy of reasons, the least of which is to see if you might have a gun locked away in your trunk.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

From last year's "Parking lot law":

It actually doesn't specify parking lots, owned, leased, or otherwise, in the statute, though I'm not sure where else the employer might think s/he holds sway over an employee's vehicle. It says a "person" (which includes a business, IIRC) may not have a rule, policy, etc. that prohibits you from having a firearm out of plain sight in your locked vehicle, except at the following places.As I told Hickman, the law allows those employers to have rules or policies that prohibit guns they can't see in locked cars they can't enter.Oh, and you can sue if they do and it harms you.And you may have other recourse as well.
However, an employer who has no rule, policy, or similar prohibition cannot be sued for any injury you sustain if someone misuses or abuses a firearm lawfully kept in his vehicle.

This year's SEA 411 says that they can't ask employees for lists of their firearms nor ask applicants if they own firearms. (Some employers, in an effort to keep the parking lots gun-free (except for criminals and non-employees,) were only hiring people who claimed to not own guns.)

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I like you a lot Bill but you're just plain wrong. The 4th Amendment would absolutely not prevent a judge from signing a warrant. As long as probable cause was established, a judge would be well within their discretion to sign a warrant presented to them. For example if a drug dog alerted to an employee's vehicle parked on company property, that alert could be used as probable cause by the police to get a warrant. That search would be well within the bounds of "the employer's bidding" as you've put it. Same with an explosives dog. If there is probable cause a warrant can be issued and executed. It doesn't matter who initiated the investigation or whose behalf or benefit it may inure.

Probable cause for what? IIUC, the term "probable cause" means that the person requesting a search warrant (probably a LEO) has PC to believe a crime has been committed and also must specify the item to be sought and seized. An employer claiming that there is a gun in a car on his parking lot is not alleging a crime has been committed, thus, a judge would,unless I'm mistaken, be unable to issue a warrant. There has to be PC or RAS of a crime committed, about to be committed, etc., and alone, a gun in a car doesn't meet that requirement.

I agree that a judge would be unlikely to issue a warrant just so an employer could poke around in an employee's car. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the 4th Amendment, other than probable cause must be demonstated.

Can a private citizen even request a warrant? Would said citizen have the power to use it if so? It was my understanding that that required police powers.

I don't think anyone in the unemployement process would be the slightest bit impressed if you said you wanted to preserve your 4th Amendment rights and would not submit to a search of your vehicle as you had agreed in order to become, or remain, employed. Why is irrelevent, as long as the request was reasonable on your employer's part. Employers require employee (and visitor) vehicle searches for a bevy of reasons, the least of which is to see if you might have a gun locked away in your trunk.

The point of the conversation with the unemployment folks is to determine if you were terminated without cause or for cause. In the latter case, you get no benefits. In the former, you might. So.. Did the employer terminate you for cause, i.e. something prohibited found in your vehicle or just because you wouldn't allow a search of your personal property.

If I had to take my chances with those folks, I think the latter would give me a stronger case.

Blessings,
Bill