Private Security and Legal Challenges

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 hospital assets. On the other hand, Bellevue hospital maintained that the employees any employee who allowed their luggage inside the hospital premises did not have any reasonable privacy expectation as long as the luggage was inside the premises of the hospital (Mansfield, 2015). This was in connection with the hospital policy that required any employee who did not want their luggage to be searched by the hospital’s security officials to leave it in one of the three provided locations. Therefore, putting every thought into consideration, Bellevue Hospital as its policy is clear and reasonable and maintained that the guards did not have to be allowed by Chenkin before searching his bag. Notably, depending on the position of Chenkin, he felt that the hospital was supposed to reimburse him the lost wages for the one week.
Details of the Ruling of the Court
When Chenkin and Bellevue Hospital presented the case to the court, the court ruled in favor of the hospital. It stated that Bellevue Hospital had made it clear the policy of the administrative search and that every employee was aware of the requirement by the search department. Clearly, the hospital had ensured every employee was aware of the policy by posting a memorandum on the same in all the hospital corridors. Moreover, the hospital policy had provided for two features to suit every kind of employee, those who like privacy and those who are protective of their bags and space. The employees were given free will to decide whether they wanted their bags to be searched or not. If one was not okay with their bags checked, they were to keep their luggage off the hospital compound. Therefore, when Chenkin felt that by checking his bad, the officers were intruding to his privacy, he could have left the bag in one of the three locations provided by the hospital on the hospital policy. The fact that he allowed his bag into the hospital compound compelled him to allow the security officers to search his bag.
The court ruled that Chenkin was aware of the two features provided in the hospital ruling but he still went ahead to ignore them and disobey the security officers (Mansfield, 2015). It, therefore, maintained that Chenkin was not to be refunded the week’s lost wages for he deserved the punishment. The court, therefore, ruled that Chenkin should not get back his weeks’ wages for violating the Hospital’s policy that was out for 12 weeks since the introduction of the policy implementation at the hospital. The ruling of the court was, therefore, that the hospital should not refund Chenkin his lost wages because he was also accused of insubordination.
Court Decision Impact on Security Operations
The security operations by any private security will be enhanced considering that the court ruled in favor of the hospital against Chenkin. This gives more relief to the private security officers who would have carried out their searches in fear. All they need to do is ensure that the policies of the administrative search are well outlined and made known to the employees of the company.
Security Policy Proposals
The decision of the court would affect private security in various ways. Evidently, it will prevent the security managers for conducting searches on the corporate executives without a clearly outlined policy since the employees are well informed and have an expectation of privacy from the court ruling. Moreover, the court ruling that the privacy of corporate executives should not be violated will disrupt private security in a big way (Chenkin v. Bellevue Hosp. Ctr.). The results of the case will be a great 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.


References
Chenkin v. Bellevue Hosp. Ctr. (1979). CHENKIN v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., N. Y. C., ETC. Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979686479FSupp207_1658/CHENKIN%20v.%20BELLEVUE%20HOSP.%20CTR.,%20N.%20Y.%20C.,%20ETC.#
Hans, G. S. (2018). Curing Administrative Search Decay. BUJ Sci. & Tech. L., 24, 1.
Mansfield, S. (2015). Constitutional Law-Administrative Searches-Closing the Door on Frank v. Maryland. DePaul Law Review, 17(1), 207.