search seizure pat down...

[chuckler3]

I'm in IL.. this is the question that has been stumping my friends.
As a result of the Atlanta courthouse shooting last week, Metropolis courthouse decided to expand their searches of all employees working within the courthouse building beyound the usual metal detector technique. Thuse, when John, a janitor, came into work, the security guard not only scanned him through the metal detector, but then conducted both a pat down search and a full inventory search of all his personal possessions. John's search revealed that he had a metal plate in his head, $729, Lucky Strike cigarettes and two hand rolled marijuana cigarettes all in teh lucky strike pack, an Neo-**** membership card and photos of three naked little boys within his wallet.. We have all had this question in class. and our professor wont give a straight answer. i know there are other posts, but this one is particular in some ways. the question is if it's legal, and what conditions would warrant this search.
thanks for the help

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I'm in IL.. this is the question that has been stumping my friends.
As a result of the Atlanta courthouse shooting last week, Metropolis courthouse decided to expand their searches of all employees working within the courthouse building beyound the usual metal detector technique. Thuse, when John, a janitor, came into work, the security guard not only scanned him through the metal detector, but then conducted both a pat down search and a full inventory search of all his personal possessions. John's search revealed that he had a metal plate in his head, $729, Lucky Strike cigarettes and two hand rolled marijuana cigarettes all in teh lucky strike pack, an Neo-**** membership card and photos of three naked little boys within his wallet.. We have all had this question in class. and our professor wont give a straight answer. i know there are other posts, but this one is particular in some ways. the question is if it's legal, and what conditions would warrant this search.
thanks for the help

We don't do homework.

 

[chuckler3]

this isn't homework. It was given out.. counts for nothing. but it is burning my braincells. has been for about 2 weeks now. i just want to know if there is something wrong with what they were doing, or if the employer has the right to do the inventory. If it was for points i would have taken the "f" by now. i just want to know what the answer is, because my professor isn't giving it up.

 

[seniorjudge]

this isn't homework. It was given out.. counts for nothing. but it is burning my braincells. has been for about 2 weeks now. i just want to know if there is something wrong with what they were doing, or if the employer has the right to do the inventory. If it was for points i would have taken the "f" by now. i just want to know what the answer is, because my professor isn't giving it up.

We don't do [whatever term you want to use].

BUT, you come back with answers of your own that you have researched and you just might get a comment or two.

 

[You Are Guilty]

... my professor isn't giving it up.

Neither do you, huh? I'm not doing your non-homework for you either, but think about it. What makes it OK for the courthouse to use a magnetometer? How is that different than a pat-down (if at all)? That research trail should give you your answer.

 

[chuckler3]

ok.. i have two ways to think about it. this is before i considered employer rights.(which i am unsure of) I went against the inventory, for plain feel. I went with the idea that the pat down was o.k., and that the inventory couldn't take place until an object was felt and identified to be dangerous or contraband. i then started to consider the the employer's rights, and didn't know much about them. and this site came up while i was searching for answers.

 

[seniorjudge]

ok.. i have two ways to think about it. this is before i considered employer rights.(which i am unsure of) I went against the inventory, for plain feel. I went with the idea that the pat down was o.k., and that the inventory couldn't take place until an object was felt and identified to be dangerous or contraband. i then started to consider the the employer's rights, and didn't know much about them. and this site came up while i was searching for answers.

Not even close....Do your research and come back with some sensible answers.

 

[chuckler3]

thanks for the help... sorry for the waste of your time..

 

[MetaJeffB]

Here's my 2 cents....

John did not have to agree to the immediate pat-down. He could have excused himself from entering the building any further when instructed to assume the position. At that point he could go to his car and remove any inappropriate items from his person. Then return and entered again, this time agreeing to the pat-down and inventory.

Basically, he was not originally being detained or in police custody to conduct the search. The fact that he allowed it to occur is his own fault. Now he must face the concequences.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Here's my 2 cents....

John did not have to agree to the immediate pat-down. He could have excused himself from entering the building any further when instructed to assume the position. At that point he could go to his car and remove any inappropriate items from his person. Then return and entered again, this time agreeing to the pat-down and inventory.

Basically, he was not originally being detained or in police custody to conduct the search. The fact that he allowed it to occur is his own fault. Now he must face the concequences.

And, of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the original post as stated.

 

[seniorjudge]

Here's my 2 cents....

John did not have to agree to the immediate pat-down. He could have excused himself from entering the building any further when instructed to assume the position. At that point he could go to his car and remove any inappropriate items from his person. Then return and entered again, this time agreeing to the pat-down and inventory.

Basically, he was not originally being detained or in police custody to conduct the search. The fact that he allowed it to occur is his own fault. Now he must face the concequences.

You're getting close.

Hint...start from the beginning and identify all the players.

 

[seniorjudge]

And, of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the original post as stated.

Correct...also OP (and other guessers) read the fourth amendment several times.

 

[MetaJeffB]

And, of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the original post as stated.

Ok... Yes, it was a legal search. John was just an idiot for allowing himself to get caught.

 

[seniorjudge]

Ok... Yes, it was a legal search. John was just an idiot for allowing himself to get caught.

After you read the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Google united states constitution fourth amendment warrantless searches and let me know what you find out.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Google is your friend. Look at the first result I found: http://rexcurry.net/law graphics/refusal.html

You ought to contact that guy and go have a beer or something.