The Case Of The Second Amendment Rights

1386 Words6 Pages
After reviewing the given information from Ms. Bennett, there is a strong possibility the court will find the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (U.S. Cons.) In order for the court to find a lack of a violation, they need to determine that the findings of Ms. Bennett were reasonable in inception and scope. In this particular case, the burden of proof is put upon the Government. A. Reasonableness in Inception Ms. Bennett did not fall out of the parameter and breach the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right with the reasonableness at inception. To be reasonable in inception means to have a rational reason for inspecting an employee’s work area. Physical evidence, information from a reliable source, or a professional’s opinion, of work related misconduct or illegal activities occurring are valid reasons for investigations. “Employers’ intrusions on constitutionally protected privacy interest … investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances.” O’Connor v Ortega, 107 S. Ct. 1492 (U.S. 1987). In City of Ontario, California v Quon,
Get Access