Private Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment - Essay Example

Private Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment Number: Private Search of Immobile Vehicle The fourth amendment provides individuals with protection from searches and seizures that may be deemed unreasonable. However, it is applicable when such searches and seizures have been carried out by state or federal officials or agents of the government (Schulhofer, 2012). Such agents would include the local police officers, Border Patrol Agents, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, among other government security agents. As such, any searches that may be made on the private property by private citizens or private security officers are not subject to the Fourth Amendment. Thus, I as the Information Security Specialist of the Makestuff Company or Mr. Yourprop’s supervisor can conduct searches on the vehicle of Mr. Yourprop currently parked in the parking lot without violating the Fourth Amendment since we are not government officials or representatives. The evidence that would be obtained from the search, if any, can be handed over to the police as evidence against Mr. Yourprop for violation of the Intellectual Property Law. In State v. Buswell, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the protection of the Fourth Amendment was limited to government action and thus any private searches conducted by private citizens were not covered by the exclusionary rule. Thus, if evidence is seized through a private search, then it can be handed over to the police to be applied in a court of law as evidence for an offense (State v. Buswell, 1990). Handing over the information obtained through the search of Mr. Yourprop’s car by his supervisor or I to the police cannot transform it into government action since the police have no acquiescence or knowledge of the search, and that the search has been done in promotion of the private interests of the company. 2. Search of Immobile Vehicle by Police Officers The Fourth Amendment applies to police as they are state officers. Nevertheless, the “automobile exception” allows police to conduct any immediate search on a vehicle without seeking a warrant as it would take a lot of time to find a warrant and the vehicle may have moved away from the jurisdiction (Kanovitz, 2015). Thus, the supervisor of Mr. Yourprop may direct the police officers to search the vehicle parked in the parking lot as there is probable cause that it may be carrying digital evidence of the company’s intellectual property. As much as the car is currently immobile, it is “ready to move” and thus subject to the automobile exception. In His interpretation of Chambers v. Maroney, Justice Stevens held that all immediate searches conducted on vehicles by police officers without a warrant were justified and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment as long as the police officers have probable cause to believe that the vehicle in question is carrying contraband (Chambers v. Maroney, 1970). As such, the police, in this case, would be justified to carry out the search on Mr. Yourprop’s car given the probable cause that it may be carrying evidence of a criminal offense. This aspect of a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to vehicles is diluted by the regulation, use, and configuration of the vehicle. In the case Carroll v. United States, it was held by the Court that the expectation of privacy is lesser in motor vehicles due to their functions in transportation and it rarely serves as an individual’s personal effects’ repository or their residence (Carroll v. United States, 1925). Considering this take, Mr. Yourprop has a lesser reasonable expectation of privacy, especially in this case as there exist probable cause that his vehicle is harboring stolen intellectual property, which may be moved away from the premise and the police jurisdiction if they go in search of a warrant. 3. Searching the Defendant’s Locker The supervisor or I have jurisdiction to search the locker of Mr. Yourprop without the violation of the fourth amendment as it does not apply to private searches. In the case Burdeau v. McDowell, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule was not applicable to searches conducted in the private sector (Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921). The court held that the Fourth Amendment could not invade any search or seizure conducted by private entities to repossess what had been wrongfully taken from them by another party. This applies in Mr. Yourprop’s case as there is probable cause to believe that he is wrongfully taking intellectual property that belongs to the company with him, and infringement of the intellectual property rights. A search conducted by Mr. Yourprop’s supervisor or me to determine of Mr. Yourprop has carried with him any intellectual property of the company and retrieving it if found, is thus justified and protected against the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment. 4. Searching the Defendant’s Locker in his Absence Mr. Yourprop’s supervisor and I can employ any means possible to search and seize any property that belongs to the company that we represent from Mr. Yourprop without violating the Fourth Amendment. According to John Wesley Hall, Jr., a trial attorney, non-law enforcement parties or private personnel are not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s coverage in their searches and seizures, regardless of how unlawfully they may conduct such searches (Nemeth, 2011). The law only applies to action by government entities and does not apply to the passive act by such government entities using evidence that is deemed relevant, which has been obtained by the private party through any conduct, however unlawful. As such, the use of a master key to search the desk of Mr. Yourprop after he has left the premise is justified by the intent of the search as it is aimed to secure any evidence of a criminal offense on the intellectual property rights. 5. Legitimate Regulation The company would have a right to search Mr. Yourprop’s possession within its premises, given that they had initially informed him of his limited expectation of privacy within the work premises. Such a search is justified by the “Legitimate Regulation”, which is the prior notice given to the employee concerning the right held by their employer to conduct searches on them and their property while within the business premise (Dunne, 2009). As such, as much as Mr. Yourprop failed to sign an acknowledgement of receiving the Handbook that clearly explains the limited expectation of privacy, the employee was in possession of the book and thus it is assumed that he was aware of the employer’s right to conduct searches on him. Nevertheless, to avoid liability, it will be important to obtain the consent of Mr. Yourprop before conducting any searches on him. In addition, it is important to consider other state laws that govern employee privacy under Employment Law. 6. Checkpoint Search Given the probable cause to believe that Mr. Yourprop is stealing the intellectual property rights as intends to sell the company ideas to another company, any searches conducted by the company to obtain such evidence would be justified. A search at the security checkpoint may also involve searches for any property that belongs to the company, which has been stolen and is being carried by the employee on their way out. Intellectual property is a property of the company, and thus its intangible nature justifies the search and seizure of any documents or digital storages that may be holding such evidence (Bently & Sherman, 2014). Nevertheless, it is vital to ensure that the consent of the employee has been obtained to avoid liability for other issues such as assault or invasion of employee privacy, which may be covered by the Employment Law. References Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual Property Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (U.S. Supreme Court June 1, 1921). Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (United States Supreme Court March 2, 1925). Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (United States Supreme Court June 22, 1970). Dunne, R. (2009). Computers and the Law: An Introduction to Basic Legal Principles and Their Application in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kanovitz, J. R. (2015). Constitutional Law for Criminal Justice. London: Routledge. Nemeth, C. (2011). Private Security and the Law. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Schulhofer, S. J. (2012). More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century. New York: Oxford University Press. State v. Buswell, 460 N.W.2d 614 (Supreme Court of Minnesota August 31, 1990). Read More