Can an employer do this?

Your working on private property and they have this right to look around the property. They dont have the right to go into your car unless its somehow part of your compensation. (e.g company car). They dont have to right to force you to to say open your breifcase unless something is clearly written in your employee contract.

The employer does not, but the POLICE do.

It is part of Implied Consent.

Remember, driving is a priviledge, not a right.  And implied consent gives access to your vehicle BY DEFAULT by you having a driver’s license.

Actually Zooey, I was wrong, they CAN search your car.

Anything you take onto the property of an employer is subject to search.  This is true even if you are not their employee.

I am routinely searched entering industrial facilities.  I even have private property confiscated prior to entry and returned upon departure.  Examples of this seizure includes lighters, cell phone, cameras (including the one I am required to carry as part of my commercial vehicle accident kit), etc.

Hell there is even one place I go that confiscates disposable plastic soda and water bottles (full or not) and does NOT return them upon departure.  Their policy is that if you have plastic “contraband” upon entering their property, you lose it.  You are warned in advance.  But once you hit the gate, they take it, period.

As for vehicle X-ray, I have even had THAT done, but that was entering a military base not a civilian instalation (cost prohibitive for the average business, but when you talk tax dollars, spare no expense! )

It is THEIR property.  By entering it, you accept THEIR rulles for search, etc.  Your option is to not work there, thus you do have a choice.

Ride the bus.

The one caveat to my above post…

The searches must be uniformly executed.

They can either randomly search based on some method of randomization, or they can search EVERYONE.

What they cannot do is target a specific person or TYPE of person for search.  That runs afoul of various labor laws and the 14th Amendment.

So they can;t bring in the police to search just YOUR car if they have otherwise not been searching anyone else.  But they CAN bring in the police (or do ti themselves) to search EVERYONE’s car if they believe that SOMEONE has something they are not supposed to have.  That sounds like what happened with the recent police puppy visit to your employer.

They key to such things for employers is “Universal Application”.  So long as they are consistent and/or universal in what they do in terms of search, drug tests, etc, they CAN do it.  And that is backed up by decades of both legislation and case law and is most often seen in pre-employment universal drug testing, and random drug testing in the work place.

That you Ronald Reagn for the War on Drugs that trashed the 4th Amendment.

I remember back when security at the refinery searched vehicles on the way out.  There was a rash of “equipment shortages” like $200 20’ monkey wrenches that didn’t make it back in.  This was around 1990, so they did not really care much what was brought in.  Contractor’s vehicles were searched more thouroughly because they might have a $ 2000-3000 laptop full of company documents, and mgt did not want that going over to someone else’s refinery.

@Zooey72:

…  I feel like I am being treated like a criminal for no good reason.

Now you know how any foreigner feels on entering your “land of the free”.

@Zooey72:

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

…  I feel like I am being treated like a criminal for no good reason.

Now you know how any foreigner feels on entering your “land of the free”.

Thank you from the man who lives in GERMANY!  Lets not throw stones eh?  I bet the Turks feel right at home over in germany don’t they?

Well, we do not take every foreigner’s fingerprints and retina pictures just because they happen to enter the country.
I do not throw stones, but you seem terribly misinformed. I do talk about everyone, be it tourist or immigrant. You talk about immigrants.

And i guess many turks do feel at home here. Otherwise they wouldn’t complain that much about Germany’s restrictive laws about citizenship.

PS: Brazil should have taken the US pilot, who showed the erect middle finger when he was treated exactly the same in Brazil (only appicable against US citizens opun entering Brazil), and they should have put him on some extra-territorial island where he then should stay for at least 3 years without any charge against him.

Another thing:

Zooey, what again is your stand towards the Patriot Act? Maybe someone denounced you as a terrorist, and you only thought it was a drug-sniffing dog yet instead it was an explosive sniffing dog. ….

@Zooey72:

And your turk example is a bad one. . …

It wasn’t me to bring up the turks, so it is not “my example”.  To your question: it has been lifted a bit. You can have a double citizenship if you are born in Germany and stayed … and at the age of 18 you have to choose between your “blood” or the german nationality.

I think some of you are begining to understand my “Bushtapo” remarks a few weeks ago…

Search and seizure without cause or warrant
Fingerprints and retinal scans of all inbound non-citizens
Detention of a US citizen in solitary w/o charges for 3 1/2 years

And the fact that every single person on here either tacitly or explicitly “KNOWS” that communications are monitored, that financial transactions are tracked and recorded, that purchases of certain “illicit” materials are noted in your government file, etc.

F-alk is correct when he sarcastically refers to the “home of the free”

I figure the United States will either cease to exist within the next 20 years, or we will but be totally authoritarian.  There are not enough folks who give a shit left to stop it anymore.  “Bread and Circuses”  Keep the masses fed, keep them entertained, then do as you please…

@ncscswitch:

I figure the United States will either cease to exist within the next 20 years, or we will but be totally authoritarian.Â

So what do you think can be done about this?  What do you propose should be done?  What plans have you made for these changes that will take place?

@221B:

So what do you think can be done about this?  What do you propose should be done?  What plans have you made for these changes that will take place?

What do I think can be done?  I started that a decade ago, to the best of my ability.  I am a registered Libertarian and I vote that way every time I have an L candidate on the ballot.  I annoy the daylights out of my elected officials (I no longer even get fundraising letters from them).  And on various lists, in my blog, etc., I promote a Libertarian Constitutional outlook.  And of course, I provide financial support to Libertarian and Constitutional supporting candidates.

What should be done?
EVERYONE should vote for ANY candidate other than a Republican or Democrat.  Those two parties are too entrenched in power.  Kick them BOTH out.  And I don;t care if it is a Libertarian or a Socialist that is elected to replace them.  Get rid of the existing power structure of the two parties, and some change is going to happen.  Tie the whole mess up in the courts for decades as the old power structure fights with the new… the more gridlock you have, the less damage that the government can do!

What plans have I made?
For the collapse of the US?  What can you do?  Have knowledge of how to survive, weapons and ammunition for both defense and food, and have a brain that can act and re-act to what will be an unpredicable and totally chaotic situation.

It is not like it will be total anarchy anyway.  The nation is simply going to come unglued.  We’ll probably end up with 4-7 smaller confederations in each region and a leadership of each region more akin to the Articles of Confederation.  California will probably go its own way.  Neighboring states will not join it becuase of their dominance and will instead create their own regional grouping.  The Great Plains will stick together.  Texas will go solo like California.  Florida…  Florida could be a problem.  They have no viable economy if tourism goes down and a largely dependent population (Social Security is the number one source of paychecks in Florida).  The old Rust Belt will join together, and New England and the Mid-Atlantic states will stick together.  Lastly, the old Confederacy will stick together as well, this time with a large amount of on-site military force and a diverse economy.  Alaska will happily go solo, but seek an alliance with a strong nation for protection in exchange for oil.  Hawaii will seek protection also, most likely in the far east, maybe from California but doubtful.

Regional battles will be severe, especially in the Southwest as California and Arizona find themselves lacking water once the Federal restrictions are no longer enforceable and upstream territories of the Colorado start to draw off more water for their own use.

That enough theoretical for ya?

Interesting theory…

@221B:

Interesting theory…

Just an extrapolation.

Regional division in the US is greater than at any time since 1860.  The whole “Red State, Blue State” thing is getting out of hand.  New England is Liberal, as is California, Oregon and Washington.  The plains, and south are conservative.  Mid-Atlantic and rust belt are moderate but leaning liberal.

As we go through the next decade or so, those core divisions in outlook will start to create some significant points of stress.  Abortion laws, progressive taxation, social welfare… these are the wedges.  The driving force behind those wedges are going to be things like the  simple demographics of the country, particularly as regards age and wage.

The final impetus will be when Social Security has to start paying out more than it takes in.  Forget all the crap you hear about Social Security going belly up in 2042 or something like that.  THAT date is contingent upon the alleged “trust fund” actually existing… it doesn;t.  The REAL date is about 10-12 years from now when SS has to spend more than it takes in, the difference being made up from general revenues as the Feds are forced to start paying back those “IOU’s” in the trust fund.  Taxes HAVE to be dramatically increased to cover the 32 TRILLION dollar IOU and current benefits load to pay for the system through 2042.

Ain;t gonna happen.  It would require a net FEDERAL tax rate of double what we have now.  Working people will not stand for it.

Trouble is, by 2015 or so, net tax payers will be outnumbered by net tax recipients by about 3 to 2.  That is not enough to get the government to change course (majority rule in Congress and all).  But it is FAR more than enough to have that 1/3 say “To hell with the US” and split from the Union.

Add in one more stress on people’s finances… the turn of 401(k) money from being “buy” pressure on the stock market to “sell” pressure.  That will first flatten the market, then create the longest Bear market ever…  People seeing their savings disappear while simultaneously being told to pay double or more to support everyone else…  And the 401(k) tide is already beginning it’s shift and will peak about the same time SS goes red on an annual basis…

And all it takes is ONE state to secede.  Once the crack opens, others will follow in short order as each state is faced with “last one out is left holding the tab”

No more United States.

Hmm…for your original question, I’m not entirely certain that they can do that.  My guess is they probably can, but involving the police might mean that they have to publicize what they do to the company employees, even if it’s something like “we conduct random screenings of cars.”

This is for two reasons.  First, just because you’re on someone else’s property doesn’t mean they have the right to search you.  There is no necessary contractual obligation implied by going to a place that gives them the authority to do so.  Now, if a company has a stated policy, it’s a different matter, but if they haven’t informed you of it, if it’s not readily accessible, or if you haven’t been given the prior option to decline, then that may not be allowed.  However, recent court rulings have been geared towards protecting the rights/prerogatives of the business.

The second is probable cause for search and seizure.  This has always been a dicey area of the law, as it’s difficult to really say what constitutes probable cause that doesn’t get into things like racial profiling.  Bringing in a dog is fairly clearly an investigative tool, so they can’t do that without either probable cause which is precluded by default in a random screening or prior contractual permission from both the vehicle owner and the property holder.  Which of course goes back to the first point.

So, basically, see if you company has a stated policy and if you were given the option to opt out, which, as someone mentioned, could simply mean that you can’t stay at the job.  If it does and you signed, you’re out of luck.  If not, then maybe you have a case, although it’s likely you don’t unfortunately.  Good luck, man…

Back to your original post question:

who should I contact?

If you are really offended, I would start with your manager, or with his manager.  I find it is always best to work within the system first.  It could be that your management did not know the trooper would have the dog sniff the cars in the parking lot.

In addition to your feelings about your car being searched without your consent, there are lots of other issues here you could bring up to management.  Certainly, the possibility of drug addicts among your fellow workers would be reason to be concerned about your personal safety as just one example.