Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Searching workers/visitors automobiles

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Searching workers/visitors automobiles

    Something I have noticed is that virtually all companies have it in their hiring agreement that they can search the peronal belongings bags, backpacks, pockets, and automobiles of all employees. The excuse being that you are on private property or are parked on private property.

    How would this apply to anyone pulling up your driveway? What about anyone in your home visiting you legally?

    I had found a case once (in Washington) where a company tried to fire over a search and failed.

    Could this be used to disarm citizens in any privately owned parking lot?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Yes. Yes you could. Yes it could.

    Someone coming onto your property is either a licensee (someone to whom you have granted permission, with whatever conditions) or a trespasser.

    Better yet, I could demand to determine that someone wanting to come onto my property is armed to the degree I consider minimally appropriate or refuse them license to remain.

    [I have an evil mind. I'll go sit in the corner now.]

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    About 10 years ago three employees were fired from a Utah office for violating a no-gun company policy held by AOL. In violation of company policy, they had kept guns in their cars, parked in the company parking lot. They were captured on security video transferring guns from one trunk to another to carpooling to go shooting either after work or during lunch, I forget.

    The employees sued and lost their case since nothing in State or federal law prohibited a company from having a "no gun" policy that extended to the interior of employees' cars in the company parking lot.

    What is interesting is that when I started working fresh out of college about 20 years ago, my employer had no policy on guns at all. About 2 years later, they suddenly had a no gun policy that extended into the parking lot. My HR director at the time denied any desire to ban guns from cars, just that week he and several other employees had gone shooting at lunch in preparation for one of the events in an annual "Corporate Games" held among companies in SLC. The intent was just to keep guns out of the office. But the language was clear. And it was never changed.

    My theory is that most companies large enough to have a dedicated HR department belong to an HR association to keep them abreast of the newest employment laws. Most of these associations ultimately are associated with a couple of large HR specialist law firms in big, liberal cities. These firms promulgate model language for employment policies that are in harmony with applicable laws. There is a natural, anti-RKBA bias in these kinds of firms located in big, liberal cities. Plus, there is a twisted kind of cost-benefit that makes sense. If an employee is injured or killed in a criminal act at work, Workers' Comp laws limit the liability of the company so long as they have adopted reasonable policies and have proper training. Currently, banning all guns is seen as the legally safe thing to do.

    Anyway, in response to the AOL incident, gun activists in Utah pressed our legislature to pass "Parking Lot Preemption" (URS 34-45-1xx) in 2009/ With rare exception, this law protects the right of employees to keep a gun and/or religious material (religious material was added primarily to make the bill harder to argue against, nobody was getting fired for having a Bible or religious tracts in their cars so far as I know) in their car in the company parking lot without fear of negative employment action. It bans employment policies that prohibit legally possessed guns or religious material in private cars in company parking lots. Notably, the law doesn't fully address the AOL incident since to have protections the firearm must be out of sight (not in plain view from outside the vehicle). The gun has to remain in the vehicle. So a company in Utah can ban transferring guns from one car to another, but cannot ban having guns in the car. We sometimes drive out onto the public street to move guns from car to car, then drive back into the company parking lot to park.

    In exchange the law provides some liability protections to employers.

    If you read the code, notice that while it provides exemptions to schools and other government employers, most of these employers are already subject to Utah's preemption law.

    Nothing prevents the company from searching your car, but when they find the legally stored gun rather than their missing power tools, there is nothing they can legally do about the gun there.

    The only really effective exemption is for religious employers, and a few employers with security requirements who provide secure parking lots and storage, or non-secure lots where guns are permitted in the car.

    Ideally, I believe gun owners/carriers would enjoy the same anti-discrimination protections as afforded to race, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religious and political affiliation, and disability. But this was a step in the right direction and allows employees to defend themselves while commuting or running errands before, after, or during the work day.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 06-09-2015 at 05:46 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    you can thank those idiots who decided to avenge their workplace grievances against coworkers, bosses, etc., with violence to the point companies needed to protect themselves from liability so instituted policies and the government also stepped in to assist giving teeth to their policies. https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yes. Yes you could. Yes it could.

    Someone coming onto your property is either a licensee (someone to whom you have granted permission, with whatever conditions) or a trespasser.

    Better yet, I could demand to determine that someone wanting to come onto my property is armed to the degree I consider minimally appropriate or refuse them license to remain.

    [I have an evil mind. I'll go sit in the corner now.]

    stay safe.
    Sounds like a reasonable demand.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yes. Yes you could. Yes it could.

    Someone coming onto your property is either a licensee (someone to whom you have granted permission, with whatever conditions) or a trespasser.

    Better yet, I could demand to determine that someone wanting to come onto my property is armed to the degree I consider minimally appropriate or refuse them license to remain.

    [I have an evil mind. I'll go sit in the corner now.]

    stay safe.
    So, that is truly private property.

    What about property that is 'private' property that is generally open to the public?
    What if the company you work at does not own the parking lot?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, that is truly private property.

    What about property that is 'private' property that is generally open to the public?
    What if the company you work at does not own the parking lot?
    Whether the public is invited or not does not have any effect on ownership (private v. public)

    Not sure where you are going with your "What if," but parking lot control for multi-tenant and/or employee/customers/invitees is more a matter of written agreements (lease) for private property. Public property parking lots are generally controlled by statute, ordinance, or regulation.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •