Introduction
This paper seeks to explicate on the legitimacy of private security in regard to conducting administrative searchers based on the Chenkin v. Bellevue case. In the Chenkin v. Bellevue case, the court sought to challenge the legitimacy of searchers carried out by private security in a company to recover property or reduce asset theft. In the case, Bellevue Hospital provides a clear policy which guides the hospital in its reduction of theft of assets (Chenkin v. Bellevue Hosp. Ctr.). The hospital policy outlines that every package, large parcel or bag that is carried by any corporate employee must be searched randomly before the employee leaves the facility. However, Chenkin, a chemist at the hospital had denied the guards from searching his luggage two times. Consequently, the chemist’ wages were withheld for a week as a way of the hospital taking disciplinary action against him. Therefore, in the case, Chenkin argues that the searches at the hospital are against his constitutional rights and that the hospital owes him his lost wages.

Administrative search issues

The Chenkin v. Bellevue case had issues that were related to administrative searches. Basically, the main issue in the case was about administrative searchers. Chenkin had reported the hospital to the court regarding being searched in a manner that he thought it was unconstitutionally (Mansfield, 2015). The court was expected to resolve whether the search carried out by the hospital security officers on their employee's bags and large parcels violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution. Both the hospital and the employee Chenkin had come to an agreement that what the court was to rule on was the legality of the administrative searcher what was carried out by the hospital security on the employees. Notably, the main disagreement between the hospital and the employee concerned the administrative searchers, and hence related to the search program in a big way.

Chenkin and Bellevue positions advanced to the court

The positions that were advanced to the court by Chenkin and Bellevue were opposing positions regarding the claim by Chenkin that the administrative searches at the hospital were unconstitutional. According to Chenkin’s stand, the hospital administrative search program violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution. He argued that the hospital policy gave permission to the security officer to intrude the privacy of the employees in an unreasonable manner. Moreover, Chenkin added that the handling of the employees during the random searchers did not yield any positive results in terms of protection of the...…foundation on the making of the administrative search policy to the corporate executives (Hans, 2018). The court ruled against Chenkin because the hospital had its policy outlined well and posted as a memorandum for all the employees to see. I will have to come up with a clear policy that defines the way the searchers will be conducted. Moreover, I will also have the executives educated on the importance of adhering to the security policies of the institution. This way, I will be able to implement the process of administrative search smoothly and hence protect the assets of the company legitimately.

Conclusion

Just like any other cases similar to this one, Chenkin v. Bellevue case led to the introduction of some new considerations of the rights of the corporate executives in regard to administration searches. The decision of the court has great significance to private security in today’s corporate environment. The court ruling introduced some legal considerations that any security manager should analyze in their approach to seeking asset protection. The court ruling gave the concern the searchers of corporate executives and the effect it had. Any random search in the security realm that seeks to deter a threat to asset theft should always be reasonable.

…