Employers Requiring The Right to Search Your Vehicle

[E4 No More]

After seeing the article on the "Guns in Parking Lots" legislation, I wrote the following email to Senator Campfield and copied my senator, representative, and the speaker. I thought that you all might like to see the alarming response that I got and act with your congresspeople about it.

 

Senator Campfield:

 

Reference this article: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jan/04/harwell-mulls-taking-second-shot-on-campfields/

 

Let me first say that I appreciate your work on the issue of allowing law-abiding and licensed employees to be able to leave their weapons locked in their vehicles, but in reading this article the thing that concerns me the most is that employers shouldn’t ever have the right to search an employee’s vehicle, or their person, at any time, and the version that is explained in this article seems to grant them that ability. For the life of me I don’t understand why the legislature is making this issue complicated when it is so simple: make it unlawful for an employer to search an employee, or an employee’s vehicle, period. If an employer has enough probable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime then they should be calling a law enforcement official to perform the search after that official agrees with the probable cause presented. The employee’s vehicle or person is the employee’s property, and the employer has no property rights to either of them. Since this is an “At Will” state, the employer doesn’t need to search in order to terminate the employee.

 

Please consider this when writing legislation on this issue.

 

Senator Campfield's reply:

 

The issue is many companies are now making a requirement of employment the ability to search your car for a gun.

 

Stacey

 

My reply:

 

I get that, and this is why my solution is needed. I also get that companies want to reduce their liability without incurring expenses to do so, so perhaps employers that want to search their employees should also be 100% liable for any civil suits arising from personal injuries caused by criminal victimization that are accrued from the time their employee leaves for work until the time their employee returns from work too, and that is also NOT covered under workman's compensation insurance?

[Tempest455]

I travel 3-4 times per week and drive my company provided car 90% of the time. The remaining 10% I'm with another employee in their car. We visit customers (which we are not employeed by) and can tell you many companies have broad policies saying they reserve the right to search your car even if you are a contractor/visitor.

 

I have never actually had it happen at a customer but it has been discussed with the customer. Knowing which ones have this policy determines where/when I carry one in the car.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They can say they have a right, but at the threat of a law suit. That employer didn't hire my car, and they don't have police powers

that allow for constitutional protections. If it came to that and an employer wanted to search my car, that's what they would get in return.

I may lose my job, but I doubt I would want to work there any more.

I'm sure I'll hear some disagreement using the "at-will" argument, or the property argument, but that is the route I will take because they

won't search my car.

[E4 No More]

The reply from Campfield gave me the impression that businesses as a whole are moving to assert/exercise the right to search your vehicle anytime. I think whatever "right" that they think they have should be clearly stripped from them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't think they have that right, even if it is a condition of employment. I agree with you, Jewell. It needs to be asserted to them.

Usually, policies like that are in the name of insurance, but I think it is a BS harrassment tool, at best. And just more of that

political correctness.

[NRA]

sounds like a violation of your 4th amendment right

[Pain103]

4th Amendment wouldn't apply to a business or private person. It only applies to government and its agents.

[NRA]

4th Amendment wouldn't apply to a business or private person. It only applies to government and its agents.

true private property

[Sky King]

Many companies already make consent to search your vehicle a condition of employement.  FedEx is that way.  However, as explained to me by member of FedEx security, they STILL will ask your permission AND you can refuse.  BUT you WILL be terminated if you refuse.  NOT for having anything prohibited by policy in your car because obviously they can not know if anything is IN your car without searching, you will be terminated for violating the conditions of employment which YOU agreed to when you accepted the job.

 

Needless to say, any attempt to sue them for loosing your job will be a major uphill fight.  One, they will show that YOU agreed to the terms of employment with your signature on a paper with a LOT of fine print.  Next, Tennessee is an employment at will state and they don't have to have a reason to fire you. 

 

It is for all of these reasons we need the law to PROHIBIT an employer from banning the possession of the LEGAL firearm being in your PRIVATE vehicle while parked on the employers lot.  FORGET THE SEARCH ISSUE.  We won't win that and besides, while in principal, I don't LIKE the idea of them searching MY car but in the final analysis, SO WHAT IF THEY DO search my car.  If they can not ban my weapon, I don't care if they find it.  NOR are they going to find anything else that will give them grounds to terminate me. 

[TGO David]

Sooner or later someone with a HCP is going to get murdered on their way to or from the office, and their family members are going to sue the living shit out of the employer for prohibiting the deceased from being able to have their legally possessed handgun in the car at the time.  When that happens, I hope the employer is bent over and their bank account is reamed out properly by the court system.

 

That is the only way this is going to change.  Until it does, we're all pissing in the wind with our hopes and dreams because TN's legislature isn't going to side with anyone other than the big tax payers.  i.e. Corporations.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Unfortunately you are probably right, David. Like all things political, it will take a tragedy to make enough people angry to want to

lynch their reps.

[Sky King]

"As described by the senator, his bill — unlike the NRA proposal — would further provide that a business could still ban weapons from its premises. Businesses, however, could not ban workers from gun ownership as a condition of employment and they would be prohibited from making searches of cars solely for the purpose of checking for guns.

If an employee was otherwise found violating company policy against having a gun in a car, Campfield said the employee could be fired but could not be criminally prosecuted and would be eligible to receive unemployment benefits."

The above is a quote from the article. These provisions are unbelievably dangerous. If they want to search your car, all they have to do is say it is for some other reason, just not the PROHIBITED reason, a firearm. It doesn't matter WHY they search your car, if the above provision is is place, if they DO find a firearm THEN they can fire you.

When you examine your employers policies and look for items that are prohibited on the property, it may surprise you. I know that FedEx bans alcohol, drugs (obviously), pornographic materials, knives of ANY length, starters pistols, disabling sprays, clubs, ammunition, flare guns and the list goes on. All they have to say is that they have reason to believe you have ANY of the listed items (except guns, if a bill such as this passes) OR they claim that you have stolen company property or something from a customers shipment and that's it. Even if they don't find ANYTHING they may have claimed to have suspected to have been in the car, once they come across the LEGAL firearm, YOU ARE TOAST. If you refuse the search, you are STILL toast because you violated one of your conditions of employment.

[Raoul]

This is why I'm self employed.

[Sky King]

This is why I'm self employed.

That would be nice if we all could be self employed but obviously we can't. But even for some of those who are. There are MANY "VENDORS" to FedEx who are self employed. The weapons policy applies to vendors as well. Once you drive on the property, your vehicle is subject to search and you can not have any of the banned items in the vehicle. If you do, you will not be allowed on the property.

[Sky King]

For the OP, how did you contact Campfield?  Did you email him at his legislative email address or do you have a more sure way to contact him?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wish someone would put a damned rattlesnake in their trunk right before a search. Talk about Bushmasters. :D

[Garufa]

Campfield's as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[Sky King]

Campfield's as dumb as a bag of hammers.

I don't know if he is really dumb or from another planet.  If you watch the videos of the Senate hearings last spring, you will understand what I am talking about.  His questioning of the representative from the Attorney General's office who was there because CAMPFIELD ask the AG to answer a specific question, will show that.  His questioning of others there to address the committee was so out of left field, I began to wonder just whose side he was on. 

 

The AG reps answered his question but Campfield just kept on and on.  

 

Also, we all knew that Haslam, Harwell and Ramsey were concerned about a bill that was what they considered too broad.  His amendment to include hunters with a valid hunting license was a definate poison pill.  While it was not ultimately what killed the bills but it certainly did NOT help.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Sky King

[Moped]

Campfield's as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Actually, I think hammers are smarter, than Campfield.

[Oh Shoot]

That would be nice if we all could be self employed but obviously we can't. But even for some of those who are. There are MANY "VENDORS" to FedEx who are self employed. ...

 

All that banned stuff and permission to search is in the contract for FedEx Ground drivers, too, who are all "independent contractors" - although they didn't care about reasonable pocket knife at least at my terminal, sort of a necessary item to have really.

 

- OS

[E4 No More]

Sooner or later someone with a HCP is going to get murdered on their way to or from the office, and their family members are going to sue the living shit out of the employer for prohibiting the deceased from being able to have their legally possessed handgun in the car at the time.  When that happens, I hope the employer is bent over and their bank account is reamed out properly by the court system.
 
That is the only way this is going to change.  Until it does, we're all pissing in the wind with our hopes and dreams because TN's legislature isn't going to side with anyone other than the big tax payers.  i.e. Corporations.

i believe that you are wrong here because worKman's compensation covers the employer during transit to and from work, and as everyone should know you cannot sue worKman's comp like that.

[E4 No More]

"As described by the senator, his bill — unlike the NRA proposal — would further provide that a business could still ban weapons from its premises. Businesses, however, could not ban workers from gun ownership as a condition of employment and they would be prohibited from making searches of cars solely for the purpose of checking for guns.If an employee was otherwise found violating company policy against having a gun in a car, Campfield said the employee could be fired but could not be criminally prosecuted and would be eligible to receive unemployment benefits."The above is a quote from the article. These provisions are unbelievably dangerous. If they want to search your car, all they have to do is say it is for some other reason, just not the PROHIBITED reason, a firearm. It doesn't matter WHY they search your car, if the above provision is is place, if they DO find a firearm THEN they can fire you.When you examine your employers policies and look for items that are prohibited on the property, it may surprise you. I know that FedEx bans alcohol, drugs (obviously), pornographic materials, knives of ANY length, starters pistols, disabling sprays, clubs, ammunition, flare guns and the list goes on. All they have to say is that they have reason to believe you have ANY of the listed items (except guns, if a bill such as this passes) OR they claim that you have stolen company property or something from a customers shipment and that's it. Even if they don't find ANYTHING they may have claimed to have suspected to have been in the car, once they come across the LEGAL firearm, YOU ARE TOAST. If you refuse the search, you are STILL toast because you violated one of your conditions of employment.

exactly! That is why they should be allowed NO wiggle room at all.

[E4 No More]

For the OP, how did you contact Campfield?  Did you email him at his legislative email address or do you have a more sure way to contact him?

Legislative email, and he was the quickest to reply. My senator (Ketron) emailed this morning. As you can tell from this response, neither used a canned reply.

[DaveTN]

sounds like a violation of your 4th amendment right

That would be true if it were the government doing it. Is it a violation of your rights to tell you to piss in a cup? It’s a search with no Probable cause.

You don’t have to piss in a cup and you don’t have to unlock your car. You just have to be ready to deal with the results of your choice

[m16ty]

I wish someone would put a damned rattlesnake in their trunk right before a search. Talk about Bushmasters. :D

 

That's a great idea. I bet most company policies don't have anything written about snakes. I'll also bet when the snake is found, the search would end then and there.

 

I'm a contactor and work in many different factories around middle TN. Most of the larger ones have a no firearm policy and the right to search. The vast maority of searches are for theft.