Week4 Question2 (1st classmate) Vi Below this is what he/she answered from the question : The U.S. Bureau of the Mint, a federal agency, produces collectible items such as commemorative coins and medals. Due to prior incidents of theft, a video surveillance was conducted on the production line of the Mint. In what appears to be Herb, a line employee, dropping medals on the floor and later picking them up and putting them in his pocket while sweeping the workplace. Based on the tape, Mint officials search Herb's locker and find the stolen medals. Can Herb have the search invalidated on the grounds that it was unjustified? What is your reasoning? So you need to respond from his/her answer ( YOU DO NOT NEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION) just respond and add YOUR THOUGHTS150-250 words remember to give thoughts and agree This is his/her answer: Herb cannot have the search invalidated because it was caught on videotape. Because of the theft incidents before, the U.S. Bureau of the Mint placed a video surveillance in an open area on the production line. Because it was not directly towards a specific employee, it is acceptable. "The right to privacy is the employer's responsibility to protect the employee's personal information." In this case, the employer has the right to place a video surveillance on the production line for protection and Herb will not be successful starting a case because he violated the company policy. There was a valid reason why the video was placed there. Unless Herb can prove that the company violated a category in the protected area, then he will not be successful. The company may search his locker because it is company property and because they found the stolen medals in his locker, the company has more evidence. The employer should gather all the evidence, interview Herb to hear his side of the story, show him the evidence, and document the entire process. Reference: Employment Law for Business textbook by Dawn D Bennett-Alexander and Laura P. Hartman FOR YOUR INFORMATION Below this is my answer: Herb has a right to decline warrantless investigations and arrests by the government as per the fourth amendment to the constitution of U.S. Incase unlawful search takes place; it is subject to containment as proof against a defendant (Newell & Tennis, 2014). Having surveillance cameras at the workplace is right since employees do not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Using natural senses, surveillance does not show more than what law enforcement can observe hence it's lawful to have surveillance of Herb getting the coin. Nevertheless, the government articulately permits Herb to have a reasonable expectation of solitude in his locker. Although assuming Herb's locker may be having all stolen coins or some of them are reasonable, there is no unswerving connection linking Herb's alleged robbery and the locker. The locker should have been searched with Herb's consent. Since Herb's locker was located within Mint, the government has the right to argue that the coins in Herb's locker are predictable. This makes the evidence of the search be acceptable and basing on all the facts the judges are left to rule out (United States, 1991). Thus, the government can avoid suppression of the coins evidence found in the Herb's locker. Besides having the surveillance cameras, it's obvious that there was a tight security within the organization. If the security were keen on their duty, they could have noted that the alleged Herb was stealing coins and confront him straight to the face. It's also clear that Herb was storing all the coins he collected at workplace on his desk. To my best of knowledge, if he had an intention of stealing them he could have carried the coins to his house or far away from the workplace. Herb should be given a chance to explain himself and before passing any judgment his mental status should be well assessed. References: United States. (1991). U.S. Mint authorization, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Secret Service Counterfeit Division: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, April 23, 1991. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. Newell, B. C., & Tennis, J. T. (2014). Me, My Metadata, and the NSA: Privacy and Government Metadata Surveillance Programs. Proceedings of the 2014 iConference, 34555. Reply Quote