Differences between Public and Private Sectors in Regards to the Write a one to two page paper discussing the differences between public and private employees in regard to the fourth amendment. Find a current, less than one year old, example of each and compare and contrast those examples. What were the differences? Cite your sources.
Differences between Public and Private Sectors in Regards to the Fourth Amendment
The fourth amendment prohibits unwarranted searches and seizures in cases where an individual is within the constitutional rights for his or her privacy to be safeguarded. This right is applicable in residential, offices, among other facilities. However, the fourth amendment in workplaces is vastly applicable to public employees and not to private employees’ actions. There are immense dissimilarities between private and public employees in matters fourth amendment (Tokson, 2016). This discourse seeks to expound on these dissimilarities while highlighting real-time examples of events relating to the fourth amendment
Herein re the dissimilarities in matters fourth amendments between public and private employees at the workplace.
Firstly, the public employees work for the stat; any state thus is subjected to the Bill of rights. For essence, the public employees are within their rights of being protected by the US constitution fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizure while within their line of duty of serving the state. However, for private employees, they are not protected by the fourth amendment since they are not categorized as state action; thus, they are highly susceptible to search and seizure in workplaces with limited restrictions (Renan, 2016).
Law enforcement search
Another distinctive difference is in regards to law enforcement searches. Law enforcement is within the rights to search a public employee’s workplace with no restrictions or need for a search warrant. Whereas for the private employee, they have legal protection protecting their search by law enforcement, To conduct a search mission in a private employee’s workspaces, a valid search warrant is mandatory. In this case, the fourth amendment works in favor of the private employee over the public employee (Renan, 2016).
In a recent case of Frankhouser vs. Clearfield County Career and Technology Centre in Pennsylvania in 2019, the judge presiding over a case, judge Kim Gibson denied dismissing public employers motion all defendant franklin walk against the plaintiff Elizabeth Frankhouser claimed for violation of her provision of the fourth amendment when the contents of her dropbox were accessed by the defendant (Pacermonitor, 2020). The dropbox contents contained a private picture of the plaintiff, but the defendant claimed that the plaintiff accessed the dropbox at work. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, alleging the infringement of her privacy by accessing the dropbox’s contents.
Additionally, in 2019 in Carpenter vs. the united states where the defendant argued of the infringement of his privacy by law enforcement, who had mounted surveillance cameras in his workplace to observe his movements and happenings. There was a violation of privacy for both the public and private sector employees (Brannon, 2019). In the case of Elizabeth accessing the contents of the dropbox, it breached the fourth constitutional amendment to be protected against unwarranted search and seizure. For Carpenter, law enforcement was breaching the amendment by surveying its facility.
Many people prefer not to have the workplaces searched without their permission; however, the law is challenging that regarding their nature of jobs. The fourth amendment overly protects the privacy rights of a public employee as compared to private employees. The public employee is protected by the constitution, whereas the private employee is protected by the sector’s guiding principles when the constitution does not protect it. However, when it comes to law enforcement searches, the private sector employees enjoy protection by law. In contrast, the public sector is within the constitution’s right to have search and seizures by law enforcement.
Brannon, M. J. (2019). CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES. Criminal Justice, 33(4), 20-26.
Renan, D. (2016). The Fourth Amendment as Administrative Governance. Stan. L., Rev., 68, 1039.
Tokson, M. (2016). Knowledge and Fourth Amendment Privacy. Nw. UL, Rev., 111, 139.
(Pacermonitor,2020)https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25665175/FRANKHOUSER_v_CLEARFIELD_COUNTY_CAREER_AND_TECHNOLOGY_CENTER_et_al (Accessed 26th July 2020)