PDA

View Full Version : Case law, CCW left in car at work?


chewy352
05-11-2012, 7:38 PM
For necessary security reasons I cannot carry my weapon at work but would like to be able to keep it in my car for the drive to and from work. However, my employer says I cannot even have it in my car on their property.

I could have sworn I've seen case law on this issue but my googlefu is failing me.

greg36f
05-11-2012, 8:18 PM
For necessary security reasons I cannot carry my weapon at work but would like to be able to keep it in my car for the drive to and from work. However, my employer says I cannot even have it in my car on their property.

I could have sworn I've seen case law on this issue but my googlefu is failing me.

His property, his rules. I think that the case law you seek works against you.

I have a CCW, but if I go to a bar or a sports game at my local sports venue, I cannot carry because in my area, those venues don't allow CCW.

My house, my rules. if you don't like it; go away.

I am not saying that I like it (I don't) but that's the way that it is.

I think that in your case, the bosses "house" includes the parking lot.

Having said that; how would he know what you had in your car? Unless you signed an agreement allowing the search of your car, how would he even get in there?

PanaDP
05-11-2012, 8:20 PM
Could you park off-grounds?

bwiese
05-11-2012, 8:21 PM
This is the subject of NRA litigation in many states to require employers to allow personal proection devices including firearms to be safely stored in employees' vehicles on company parking lots.

Companies don't really have rights to preclude individuals from protecting themselves on their daily journeys to/from work.

chewy352
05-11-2012, 8:22 PM
His property, his rules. I think that the case law you seek works against you.

I have a CCW, but if I go to a bar or a sports game at my local sports venue, I cannot carry because in my area, those venues don't allow CCW.

My house, my rules. if you don't like it; go away.

I am not saying that I like it (I don't) but that's the way that it is.

I can appreciate that but If I cannot keep it inside my own property then they have effectively taken away my rights going to and from work.

greg36f
05-11-2012, 8:25 PM
I can appreciate that but If I cannot keep it inside my own property then they have effectively taken away my rights going to and from work.

But your property (your car) is on his property. You can control what is in your driveway right! Why cannot he control what is in his parking lot?

I'm not agreeing, I'm just saying.

chewy352
05-11-2012, 8:25 PM
This is the subject of NRA litigation in many states to require employers to allow personal proection devices including firearms to be safely stored in employees' vehicles on company parking lots.

Companies don't really have rights to preclude individuals from protecting themselves on their daily journeys to/from work.

That must be what I have seen. Thanks.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 8:27 PM
Could you park off-grounds?

possible alternative but do u really wanna park off property, maybe out of sight, with a firearm in your car? You could be a target and find ur weapon in the wrong hands.

greg36f
05-11-2012, 8:31 PM
This is the subject of NRA litigation in many states to require employers to allow personal proection devices including firearms to be safely stored in employees' vehicles on company parking lots.

Companies don't really have rights to preclude individuals from protecting themselves on their daily journeys to/from work.

Yes, but they can control what you bring onto their property and if legal precedent clearly says that the police are not required to protect you, how can you force an employer to allow you to protect yourself?

What's next, forcing them to allow you to bring your desk in case a co- worker goes off or you get robbed?

Seems like two rights are colliding (my property/my rules verses your right to carry a gun where you want).

Talk about slippery slope. De we really want property rights eroded this far?

We all have a stake in this because all of us either own property or will.

chewy352
05-11-2012, 8:31 PM
I could, however in my situation that would make my vehicle a bigger target.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 8:35 PM
On the flip side of all this banter. He has no right to inspect inside your vehicle. ;)

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 8:36 PM
This is the subject of NRA litigation in many states to require employers to allow personal proection devices including firearms to be safely stored in employees' vehicles on company parking lots.

Companies don't really have rights to preclude individuals from protecting themselves on their daily journeys to/from work.

Companies have every right to determine what they will or will not allow on their private property. Just as you have the right to allow or disallow at your discretion on your property, companies have the same rights. It may well be in litigation in many states but thats all it is, litigation.

Once the law is changed and has its own proper guidelines in place then private CCW holders would have something to aid their cause. With so many diverse types of companies doing many different aspects of work its critical that the law lay down the specifics for CCW holders and their ability to protect themselves to and from work and which companies would have to allow such carry.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 8:41 PM
On the flip side of all this banter. He has no right to inspect inside your vehicle. ;)

thats not necessarily true either, depending on the company you work for, as part of your employment agreement, some companies do reserve the right to inspect vehicles both entering and leaving their premises.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 8:41 PM
thats not necessarily true either, depending on the company you work for, as part of your employment agreement, some companies do reserve the right to inspect vehicles both entering and leaving their premises.

Please stop making things up

taperxz
05-11-2012, 8:42 PM
You would have to sign a contract and waive your rights for that inspection prior to them doing this.

greg36f
05-11-2012, 8:43 PM
Please stop making things up



What are yo talking about?

They make the rules. If you want to work there, you agree to the rules or you look somewhere else.

77bawls
05-11-2012, 8:43 PM
On the flip side of all this banter. He has no right to inspect inside your vehicle. ;)

True but there is no law that says they can't fire you if you don't let them.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 8:44 PM
hence if you read everything i said you would understand what i said

greg36f
05-11-2012, 8:47 PM
hence if you read everything i said you would understand what i said

???

taperxz
05-11-2012, 8:51 PM
There is no way an employer can simply inspect the contents of your car without permission!

It would have to be a condition of pre employment or you would have to waive your rights just like if LE wanted to inspect.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 8:52 PM
True but there is no law that says they can't fire you if you don't let them.

Show me some case law to back this up without a pre employment contract!

taperxz
05-11-2012, 8:53 PM
It also better be posted upon entering the parking lot

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 8:56 PM
just out of high school i worked for Foremost McKesson, a diary processing plant in the City of Commerce, Ca. As part of my pre-employment hiring, I had to agree to allow my vehicle to be searched, at my employers discretion, upon entering or leaving the property. Of course, I could have refused this inclusion, but I would not have been hired either.

Someone stated it very eloquently in an earlier post. Its a slippery slope and you're not gonna be able to insist that you have rights on your property yet someone else has no rights on their property. That's what it is basically coming down to and even many companies should be able to successfully argue that by not allowing you to carry onto their premises does not infringe upon your right to protect yourself, especially if other options are available, such as off street parking in your case.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 9:01 PM
It also better be posted upon entering the parking lot

taper, the point i was making in my thread was that for many companies, part of their pre-employment hiring practice is to reserve that right. Of course, it depends on the company and if that is part of their policy they dont even need to post it, you've already agreed to it. Its not always about guns or not having guns, its usually more to do with employee theft or such, but the same policy would give them that right to search if they wanted to.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 9:01 PM
They can inspect but if its in a locked container they can't arbitrarily make you open that container. You waived your rights as a condition of employment the OP did not say he did

tacticalcity
05-11-2012, 9:02 PM
Please stop making things up

How is that making things up? If you work for a defense contractor that does sensitive work this is standard. Even software companies will often have stuff like this written into their employment agreement. It is not that uncommon.

sandman21
05-11-2012, 9:03 PM
Show me some case law to back this up without a pre employment contract!

We work in an at will state, you can be fired for any reason.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 9:04 PM
???

i was replying to tap, greg...lol...like 4 other people posted before i got mine in

microwaveguy
05-11-2012, 9:04 PM
thats not necessarily true either, depending on the company you work for, as part of your employment agreement, some companies do reserve the right to inspect vehicles both entering and leaving their premises.

True ........ many companies have signs at the entrance.

You would have to sign a contract and waive your rights for that inspection prior to them doing this.

Somewhere in that pile of paper you sign when you start your employment

True but there is no law that says they can't fire you if you don't let them.

Also true ........... if you don't submit then depending on WHY they want to search ,you could be talking to the local LEO's while your vehicle is opened and then fired.

tacticalcity
05-11-2012, 9:09 PM
It also better be posted upon entering the parking lot

Written anywhere in the company policy as for not being on their property, they do not need to post signs. Must be in the employment agreement to be able to search you and your property at will while on their property. Again, no sign need be posted. You signed the agreement.

Look it is simple. If you don't like their policies, find a new job. You don't get to dictate to your employer what they will or will not allow on their property. I certainly don't want people telling me what I must and must not allow on mine.

Your right to carry does not superceed their rights to say, not on their property. Their land, their rules. Same goes for home owners and even renters. If somebody says they don't want you carrying in their home...legally you have to leave.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 9:10 PM
In all this banter the OP did not say he waived his rights in a pre employment contract or say that a sign was posted. Until he says one of these is the case he can leave the firearm in his car. As i have stated above.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 9:10 PM
They can inspect but if its in a locked container they can't arbitrarily make you open that container. You waived your rights as a condition of employment the OP did not say he did

I don't know what he has signed, maybe more information for the OP would help to better understand, but the fact his employer has already told him that they would not allow it would give them more than absolute good cause to fire him if they were to find out, in any manner. If he values his job, which im sure the gentlemen does, my advice would be to tread lightly, an employers right to terminate for good cause has lots of reach.

sandman21
05-11-2012, 9:15 PM
In all this banter the OP did not say he waived his rights in a pre employment contract or say that a sign was posted. Until he says one of these is the case he can leave the firearm in his car. As i have stated above.

The banter started when you tried to correct someone and failed.

It does not need to be in a pre employment contract, we are an at will state, a person can be fired for any reason. Any employee agreement will allow the employer to revise the contract at any point in time. If the OP brings and stores a firearm and the employer has stated not to have it on the property, there is a possibility he can be fired.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 9:17 PM
I don't know what he has signed, maybe more information for the OP would help to better understand, but the fact his employer has already told him that they would not allow it would give them more than absolute good cause to fire him if they were to find out, in any manner. If he values his job, which im sure the gentlemen does, my advice would be to tread lightly, an employers right to terminate for good cause has lots of reach.


If the employer fires him for not allowing for a vehicle inspection, without prior written or implied consent the employee can sue for violation of a civil right. It must be implied or contractually agreed upon. YES!! It would help if the OP gave more information on his situation, everyone else is assuming, guessing and making things up without the proper information from the OP.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 9:20 PM
The banter started when you tried to correct someone and failed.

It does not need to be in a pre employment contract, we are an at will state, a person can be fired for any reason. Any employee agreement will allow the employer to revise the contract at any point in time. If the OP brings and stores a firearm and the employer has stated not to have it on the property, there is a possibility he can be fired.

BS! Your employer would have to violate your civil rights in order to force an inspection of you vehicle without a contract or implied consent.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 9:22 PM
They can inspect but if its in a locked container they can't arbitrarily make you open that container. You waived your rights as a condition of employment the OP did not say he did

they can't MAKE you open anything, but they do reserve the right to terminate you if you dont. It doesn't matter if its a locked container or your locked trunk, if you refuse inspection of the entire contents in your vehicle you could risk termination. They also have rights to detain you, especially if they have suspicion of theft until LE arrives. Knowing more about the OP's company and its policies would obviously give us all a better idea, but for you to outright give him bad information that could cause him termination or reprimand is irresponsible. At least, if my information turns out to be bad he won't be losing his job over it :D

taperxz
05-11-2012, 9:22 PM
OH! since i am an employer! I know i cant just do this without a pre employment contract or a sign saying "no firearms allowed" Even this sign doesnt give me the right to inspect the contents of his vehicle, I would have to call LE.

Bro KV
05-11-2012, 9:22 PM
Companies will only know if you open your big mouth.

sandman21
05-11-2012, 9:24 PM
BS! Your employer would have to violate your civil rights in order to force an inspection of you vehicle without a contract or implied consent.

Show me some case law to back this up..

There is no civil rights violation, civil rights apply to certain cases. This is not one of them. We are an at-will state you can be fired for any reason.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 9:29 PM
There is no civil rights violation, civil rights apply to certain cases. This is not one of them. We are an at-will state you can be fired for any reason.

Obviously you've never been sued by an employee for "no reason":rolleyes:

microwaveguy
05-11-2012, 9:30 PM
If the employer fires him for not allowing for a vehicle inspection, without prior written or implied consent the employee can sue for violation of a civil right. It must be implied or contractually agreed upon. YES!! It would help if the OP gave more information on his situation, everyone else is assuming, guessing and making things up without the proper information from the OP.

The signs I have seen are at the entrance to the parking lot. You park in their lot and it is subject to search, with or without consent............. you haven't been around secure government contractors have you?

If they think you have stolen something they will have LEO's present and it will be opened ........... one way or the other. If the Fed's are involved then it goes to a whole new level.That is the only time I have seen an employer open a vehicle.

sandman21
05-11-2012, 9:34 PM
Obviously you've never been sued by an employee for "no reason":rolleyes:

I had no idea simply suing someone made you right. :rolleyes:

BigDogatPlay
05-11-2012, 9:40 PM
You would have to sign a contract and waive your rights for that inspection prior to them doing this.

At the company I work for all prospective employees sign an offer letter which binds them, in part, to the company's policies, rules and the employee handbook. Our work spaces are secure. No one in or out without authorization. All entrances and exits are camera covered as well. Personal items are subject to inspection at the company's discretion. Weapons are not allowed at any time, anywhere on company property. We have offices in right to carry states and the folks that work there are bound by the same rules.

Read the employment agreement carefully. It doesn't have to be a contract, just an agreement.

bigcalidave
05-11-2012, 9:43 PM
they can't MAKE you open anything, but they do reserve the right to terminate you if you dont. It doesn't matter if its a locked container or your locked trunk, if you refuse inspection of the entire contents in your vehicle you could risk termination. They also have rights to detain you, especially if they have suspicion of theft until LE arrives. Knowing more about the OP's company and its policies would obviously give us all a better idea, but for you to outright give him bad information that could cause him termination or reprimand is irresponsible. At least, if my information turns out to be bad he won't be losing his job over it :D


Detaining someone while waiting for law enforcement would be kidnapping / false imprisonment in almost every situation. Don't ever do that.

Decoligny
05-11-2012, 9:50 PM
i was replying to tap, greg...lol...like 4 other people posted before i got mine in

That is why it is best to use the "quote" button. Then they know who you are replying to.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 9:53 PM
At the company I work for all prospective employees sign an offer letter which binds them, in part, to the company's policies, rules and the employee handbook. Our work spaces are secure. No one in or out without authorization. All entrances and exits are camera covered as well. Personal items are subject to inspection at the company's discretion. Weapons are not allowed at any time, anywhere on company property. We have offices in right to carry states and the folks that work there are bound by the same rules.

Read the employment agreement carefully. It doesn't have to be a contract, just an agreement.

Agreement, contract, I agree. Without it? No way they inspect you vehicle without consent and not violating you civil rights.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 9:54 PM
taper, you've already got a lawsuit filed lol ok, so our guy ends up getting fired because the employer already informed him that they do not allow firearms on the premises, including the parking lot, and already aware of company policy, he defies policy and brings a firearm onto the premises anyway.

First, find a lawyer that would be willing to take on such a case, without first making sure his high fees are paid well in advance of any decision.

Second, upon already having paid your high fees in advance to this lawyer, who has already aroused my suspicions, due to the fact he even took the case, be ready to possibly have the case thrown out of court, no refund on his attorney fees, of course.

Third, if you really wanna keep fighting your former employer for violating a rule you had already been advised against doing, be ready to pony up some more high attorney fees, in a more than probable futile effort to have the decision reversed.

This could go round and round til you're bankrupted, still jobless and in the kind of debt that will keep you working without anything to show for it for years to come. Would all that be worth the cause?

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 9:57 PM
Detaining someone while waiting for law enforcement would be kidnapping / false imprisonment in almost every situation. Don't ever do that.

you're on THEIR property, they have every right to detain you, just as you have the right to detain someone on your property. Getting a kidnapping or false imprisonment charge to stick would be a joke
Just walk into a store and shoplift something and see how fast they detain you until LE arrives.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:02 PM
you're on THEIR property, they have every right to detain you, just as you have the right to detain someone on your property. Getting a kidnapping or false imprisonment charge to stick would be a joke
Just walk into a store and shoplift something and see how fast they detain you until LE arrives.

OMG! FAIL!!!!! If you do not fear for you safety or life you do not detain with force!!!

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 10:10 PM
OMG! FAIL!!!!! If you do not fear for you safety or life you do not detain with force!!!

i respond to 2 or 3 of those a week and i've never arrested someone for kidnapping or false imprisonment yet...i'll let you know if i do though
and just for the record, I never said anything about "with force"...you added that part in

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:13 PM
taper, you've already got a lawsuit filed lol ok, so our guy ends up getting fired because the employer already informed him that they do not allow firearms on the premises, including the parking lot, and already aware of company policy, he defies policy and brings a firearm onto the premises anyway.

First, find a lawyer that would be willing to take on such a case, without first making sure his high fees are paid well in advance of any decision.

Second, upon already having paid your high fees in advance to this lawyer, who has already aroused my suspicions, due to the fact he even took the case, be ready to possibly have the case thrown out of court, no refund on his attorney fees, of course.

Third, if you really wanna keep fighting your former employer for violating a rule you had already been advised against doing, be ready to pony up some more high attorney fees, in a more than probable futile effort to have the decision reversed.

This could go round and round til you're bankrupted, still jobless and in the kind of debt that will keep you working without anything to show for it for years to come. Would all that be worth the cause?

IN COURT??? It better be in the form of something signed!! Saying something doesn't hold up in court. It must be agreed upon and additionally it must be agreed upon that the car can be arbitrarily inspected upon entry and exiting the property.

Example! What would you say if i said before you leave my house i need to do a full body cavity search on your wife before you leave? Ya, you"re gonna say thats different but really its not unless you agree to it prior to entering;)

BigDogatPlay
05-11-2012, 10:15 PM
Agreement, contract, I agree. Without it? No way they inspect you vehicle without consent and not violating you civil rights.

Only the government can violate your 4A rights. You might have some other cause of action in some cases, but a civil rights action you do not.

BigDogatPlay
05-11-2012, 10:18 PM
Detaining someone while waiting for law enforcement would be kidnapping / false imprisonment in almost every situation. Don't ever do that.

Not necessarily. I responded to lots of person detained for whatever over the years.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:21 PM
i respond to 2 or 3 of those a week and i've never arrested someone for kidnapping or false imprisonment yet...i'll let you know if i do though
and just for the record, I never said anything about "with force"...you added that part in

So explain to me how an employer without an agreement would search a car without consent? Threat of firing would be force! It would be a civil rights violation.

BTW! Laughing at an employer who is getting sued for NO REASON, is not a joke! People do it every day just so they can see if they can get compensated for their dismissal. You do understand this don't you??

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:23 PM
Only the government can violate your 4A rights. You might have some other cause of action in some cases, but a civil rights action you do not.

OK so breaking and entering?

microwaveguy
05-11-2012, 10:24 PM
IN COURT??? It better be in the form of something signed!! Saying something doesn't hold up in court. It must be agreed upon and additionally it must be agreed upon that the car can be arbitrarily inspected upon entry and exiting the property.

If it is posted at the parking entrance and you park there then you agree to those terms even without a signed document.

Same as if you drive onto a military base, you consent to a search by being on the base.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:24 PM
Employees have so many rights, as an employer, no way i force entry into their car on a parking lot without stipulation!

mag360
05-11-2012, 10:25 PM
it gets even trickier for someone that does not have a car (or prefers to bicycle in my case) and only form of transportation is transit, bicycle or walking (I live 1 mile from work). what are the options for people in my situation? I don't have a vehicle to lock it in.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 10:26 PM
IN COURT??? It better be in the form of something signed!! Saying something doesn't hold up in court. It must be agreed upon and additionally it must be agreed upon that the car can be arbitrarily inspected upon entry and exiting the property.

Example! What would you say if i said before you leave my house i need to do a full body cavity search on your wife before you leave? Ya, you"re gonna say thats different but really its not unless you agree to it prior to entering;)

from what i remember concerning cases that wind up in court, testimony is still an admissable form of evidence. During cross, I'm sure the plaintiff would have to admit that the employer did indeed warn him that bringing a firearm onto company premises was not allowed. Unless he would be willing to perjue himself under oath, this would be pretty damning evidence against his own case. Not saying he couldn't somehow prevail, my only point in all of this, taper, would everything that could happen to him for his violation of company policy be worth what he MIGHT be able to salvage in a court.

As far as your example goes, what I have to say about it is meaningless, just good luck getting my wife to agree to it. :)

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:27 PM
If it is posted at the parking entrance and you park there then you agree to those terms even without a signed document.

Same as if you drive onto a military base, you consent to a search by being on the base.

NOT TRUE! And military is a whole different world.

Case and point, Illegal drugs would be illegal also per law regardless of a sign but that doesnt mean you are subject to inspection of your vehicle without probable cause.

dfletcher
05-11-2012, 10:28 PM
I'll take a different approach on this.

As a condition of employment I would require an employee to sign a "no guns on property" document; and a separate "your company vehicle, company compensated vehicle and POV are subject to search when entering, exiting or present on company property. Failure to allow inspection shall result in disciplinary action to include termination of employment" document. I would include this in the "Employee Handbook" (the Employee Handbook would be signed for too) and post signage all over the place to include break rooms, cafeteria, building entrance & exit and all over the parking lot. I'd put a sign on the street leading into the parking lot too.

There would be two separate offenses that could result in termination - having the gun in your vehicle on property and failure to allow inspection.

I think I could get an attorney to draft proper documentation and of course, I'd expect to be sued if someone got canned as a result.

Do-able?

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:29 PM
from what i remember concerning cases that wind up in court, testimony is still an admissable form of evidence. During cross, I'm sure the plaintiff would have to admit that the employer did indeed warn him that bringing a firearm onto company premises was not allowed. Unless he would be willing to perjue himself under oath, this would be pretty damning evidence against his own case. Not saying he couldn't somehow prevail, my only point in all of this, taper, would everything that could happen to him for his violation of company policy be worth what he MIGHT be able to salvage in a court.

As far as your example goes, what I have to say about it is meaningless, just good luck getting my wife to agree to it. :)

Thank you for proving my point! The accused has a right to the 5th! AND the 4th.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:33 PM
I'll take a different approach on this.

As a condition of employment I would require an employee to sign a "no guns on property" document; and a separate "your company vehicle, company compensated vehicle and POV are subject to search when entering, exiting or present on company property. Failure to allow inspection shall result in disciplinary action to include termination of employment" document. I would include this in the "Employee Handbook" (the Employee Handbook would be signed for too) and post signage all over the place to include break rooms, cafeteria, building entrance & exit and all over the parking lot. I'd put a sign on the street leading into the parking lot too.

There would be two separate offenses that could result in termination - having the gun in your vehicle on property and failure to allow inspection.

I think I could get an attorney to draft proper documentation and of course, I'd expect to be sued if someone got canned as a result.

Do-able?

YES!!! This would take the air out of my argument IMHO.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 10:36 PM
Thank you for proving my point! The accused has a right to the 5th! AND the 4th.

you got it backwards Taper, in this case the accused would be the EMPLOYER, the burden of proof would lie with the plaintiff, in this case, the terminated EMPLOYEE.

So, in essence, I have proven nothing for your point, in fact, you have just solidfied my point...thank you lol :p

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:39 PM
Lets put it this way since the OP has not stated all the facts and the basis for what i am saying.

If the LTC holder works at lets say McDonalds and can't carry while working. How in Gods green earth can an employee of McDonalds demand that the employee be subject to search and seizure of his car as a condition of employment when all other LTC holders go right on through the drive thru? It would have to be a condition of pre employment which states YOU AGREE to search of your vehicle while on the premises.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 10:42 PM
you got it backwards Taper, in this case the accused would be the EMPLOYER, the burden of proof would lie with the plaintiff, in this case, the terminated EMPLOYEE.

So, in essence, I have proven nothing for your point, in fact, you have just solidfied my point...thank you lol :p

You need to do a little homework since the employee would be sueing for a civil rights violation not the employer. The employer would have to prove that the employee agreed to not having a gun in his vehicle and agreed to search and seizure as a condition of employment. EVERYONE has a right to the 5th! Plaintiff or defendant!

five.five-six
05-11-2012, 10:43 PM
As a condition of employment I would require an employee to sign a "no guns on property" document;

I wouldn't .... then again I am pro 2A.

jdoane9724
05-11-2012, 10:51 PM
The link below has a reference to an Orlando Sentinal article that magically disappeared from their web page. Not sure if Disney was sued and lost, or if they "saw the light" and didn't fight it. However, the outcome was that an employee with a VALID FLORIDA CWP could bring their gun onto property, as long as it stayed locked in the car.

Attempting to carry through the employee gates IS a violation of Disney written policy, citations pending....

Not sure if or how this affects the OP, just some more info. If this was a court case, does that set precedent on ALL Disney property, or just Florida?

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/concealed-carry-discussion/5985-carry-walt-disney-world.html

Disney relaxes restrictions on workers' guns -- OrlandoSentinel.com

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 10:57 PM
You need to do a little homework since the employee would be sueing for a civil rights violation not the employer. The employer would have to prove that the employee agreed to not having a gun in his vehicle and agreed to search and seizure as a condition of employment. EVERYONE has a right to the 5th! Plaintiff or defendant!

yes, agreed, but i've never seen a plaintiff prove a case without giving his testimony which would then subject him to cross examination. i've done my homework, i've been in court enough to see what is and isn't a strong case. this employee would have a tough case to prove, thats my view of it. Look, anyone can sue anybody, for anything, anytime, we all know that, but it doesn't make it right or guarantee a win. even a win wouldn't guarantee a substansial monetary award. the employee would have to prove a civil rights violation took place, which means he would have to testify, i see no other way, which would open the door for the cross examination. he doesn't get it both ways on the stand...if he testifies on his behalf, he is subject to cross and must answer truthfully under oath.

as far as customers going thru the drive-thru at McDonalds, they are not employees and would in most cases only be subject to lawfull detainment if they committed a crime while on the property.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 11:04 PM
yes, agreed, but i've never seen a plaintiff prove a case without giving his testimony which would then subject him to cross examination. i've done my homework, i've been in court enough to see what is and isn't a strong case. this employee would have a tough case to prove, thats my view of it. Look, anyone can sue anybody, for anything, anytime, we all know that, but it doesn't make it right or guarantee a win. even a win wouldn't guarantee a substansial monetary award. the employee would have to prove a civil rights violation took place, which means he would have to testify, i see no other way, which would open the door for the cross examination. he doesn't get it both ways on the stand...if he testifies on his behalf, he is subject to cross and must answer truthfully under oath.

as far as customers going thru the drive-thru at McDonalds, they are not employees and would in most cases only be subject to lawfull detainment if they committed a crime while on the property.

YES! but telling an employee and having his sign a pre employment agreement/contract is night and day in court. Who's to say the employee didnt remember the WORDS said to him two years ago or the mis understanding of the rules AFTER obtaining an LTC? See my point?

HK Chef
05-11-2012, 11:19 PM
they can't MAKE you open anything, but they do reserve the right to terminate you if you dont. It doesn't matter if its a locked container or your locked trunk, if you refuse inspection of the entire contents in your vehicle you could risk termination. They also have rights to detain you, especially if they have suspicion of theft until LE arrives. Knowing more about the OP's company and its policies would obviously give us all a better idea, but for you to outright give him bad information that could cause him termination or reprimand is irresponsible. At least, if my information turns out to be bad he won't be losing his job over it :D

Absolutely true. Even in the free state of Alaska my company has a similar policy. They can't make you open anything but they will have the right to terminate if you don't let them.

taperxz
05-11-2012, 11:23 PM
Absolutely true. Even in the free state of Alaska my company has a similar policy. They can't make you open anything but they will have the right to terminate if you don't let them.

You still have to sign off on this policy. It can't just be assumed.

HK Chef
05-11-2012, 11:30 PM
Correct

microwaveguy
05-11-2012, 11:34 PM
NOT TRUE! And military is a whole different world.

Case and point, Illegal drugs would be illegal also per law regardless of a sign but that doesnt mean you are subject to inspection of your vehicle without probable cause.

Secure Government contractors can search your vehicle to make sure nothing unauthorized is leaving the facility. Signs are posted and you consent to a search by entering the facility /parking lot. All completely legal. If something illegal was found during that search or a weapon then that would trigger a further response that could be termination or a visit to a LEO or both.

It's not really that different from the military ........ drive onto their property and you are subject to the posted rules. It would be the same as going thru all the lockers in a high school during a drug sweep. Same could be done with all of the cars in a parking lot.

Paul S
05-11-2012, 11:42 PM
Companies will only know if you open your big mouth.

This ...
Excellent point. And his situation is now permanently ensconced on the internet for all to see....including his employer.
He has essentially now lost the ability to zip his lip and go about his business with the company none the wiser.

flyinverted
05-11-2012, 11:45 PM
"An employer has no right to exclude union representatives engaged in protected concerted activity from areas where it lacks an exclusionary property interest"

This was a case of a grocery store kicking people off "their property" when in fact they were only leasing the property. Every state has different property laws.

To the OP: Does your employer OWN or LEASE the property.. the parking lot specifically??? Each state has different easement rules on leased properties, so you might have a way to comply with the company policy. This does not mean you shove it in their face. You do what you need to do and live with the comfort that you may have a valid case if you ever cross that bridge.

FalconLair
05-11-2012, 11:45 PM
Taper, you and I could beat each others brains out on this for a few more hours without conclusion. Not having anymore information by the OP makes this thread pretty much unresolvable. My best advice to him would be aware of what his company does and does not allow, as far as vehicle searches, what he may or may not have agreed to upon his hiring and also the language involved which does not allow him to carry on their property and the consequences a violation could carry. If he still in in doubt, his next best avenue would probably be consulting an attorney about his legal rights on this issue. There are so many variable here in play and i've always been one to wanna err on the side of caution.

oh, and i asked my wife about the search thing, she said "NO WAY" !!

sleeper2020
05-12-2012, 12:51 AM
Who says you cant be detained on private property Taper? If your in a store the owner tells you to leave, you refuse. He keeps telling you to leave you keep refusing. Then he has his security guard go to escort you out. The guard tells you "Sir you need to leave you have been instructed to leave and you are now trespassing" you again refuse. He states again "Sir you are trespassing if you do not leave I will detain you until the police arrive to take custody of you." You again refuse. He will then place hand-restraints on you, at which point you can say "I see the light and I want to leave." Well bud by that point its too late. You can be detained by the property owner or an agent of the property owner for trespassing or any other violation of the law. Its called a citizens arrest. By law the local PD once notified that a citizens arrest has been made are required to take custody of you. From there if the owner presses charges depending on the charge your going to lock up. Now if later a jury finds that you were innocent of the charge then you could try to sue for unlawful detainment. However good luck with that.

Shiboleth
05-12-2012, 3:23 AM
"An employer has no right to exclude union representatives engaged in protected concerted activity from areas where it lacks an exclusionary property interest"

This was a case of a grocery store kicking people off "their property" when in fact they were only leasing the property. Every state has different property laws.

To the OP: Does your employer OWN or LEASE the property.. the parking lot specifically??? Each state has different easement rules on leased properties, so you might have a way to comply with the company policy. This does not mean you shove it in their face. You do what you need to do and live with the comfort that you may have a valid case if you ever cross that bridge.


I'd like to know about this aspect of the conversation. Many companies, mine included, have similar 'no guns on company property' policy, but are leasing the property. Do they have the same rights to restrict conduct as the property owner?

advocatusdiaboli
05-12-2012, 7:17 AM
On the flip side of all this banter. He has no right to inspect inside your vehicle. ;)

A t issue is if, for some reason, his car was inspected (say a parking lot brain, accident, or even mistaken identity of the car), he'd be in deep trouble for violating policy. Surely lose his job.

Breaking a rule is not a good answer. We can always break laws or rules we don't agree with but Murphy lurks and we take a risk and flirt with serious negative consequences when we do. He'd prefer to not have to risk his job in order to defend himself. So would I.

advocatusdiaboli
05-12-2012, 7:20 AM
This ...
Excellent point. And his situation is now permanently ensconced on the internet for all to see....including his employer.
He has essentially now lost the ability to zip his lip and go about his business with the company none the wiser.

Not so. The company security or police could, accidentally or on purpose, end up legitimately searching his vehicle in any number of ways: parking lot accident, parking lot break-in, mistaken DI of his vehicle or him. Then he'll be wronged twice by losing his job. Depends on how important his jobs is to him. He might find it difficult to regain employment elsewhere if terminated for weapons possession as well. this issue is not as simple as many of you make it out to be.

ivsamhell
05-12-2012, 8:30 AM
Obviously you've never been sued by an employee for "no reason":rolleyes:

thats why businesses that have a clue have a pre-employment contract that covers most anything....

Meplat
05-12-2012, 9:01 AM
Yes, but they can control what you bring onto their property and if legal precedent clearly says that the police are not required to protect you, how can you force an employer to allow you to protect yourself?

What's next, forcing them to allow you to bring your desk in case a co- worker goes off or you get robbed?

Seems like two rights are colliding (my property/my rules verses your right to carry a gun where you want).

Talk about slippery slope. De we really want property rights eroded this far?

We all have a stake in this because all of us either own property or will.

Property rights for employers and for those who have private property to which the public has access are already compromised in numerous ways. Your employer, under ADA, has to have bathroom facilities that are wheel chair compatible. Where in the bill of rights does it say that you have a right to take a dump on the bossís property?

greg36f
05-12-2012, 9:46 AM
Property rights for employers and for those who have private property to which the public has access are already compromised in numerous ways. Your employer, under ADA, has to have bathroom facilities that are wheel chair compatible. Where in the bill of rights does it say that you have a right to take a dump on the boss’s property?

I get what you are saying, but why further erode property rights?

I see this as a collision of two rights (property vs gun) and in MY OPINION property rights are more important:eek:.

I mean think about it, if forced to give up either, which would most of us choose; our home or our guns?