Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
Project 2: Legal Challenges Confronting Private Security Operations: Administrative SearchesScenario: You accept a position as the Corporate Security Director for ACME Electronics, a Fortune 1000 comp
Project 2: Legal Challenges Confronting Private Security Operations: Administrative Searches
Scenario: You accept a position as the Corporate Security Director for ACME Electronics, a Fortune 1000 company that manufactures different devices for a variety of well-known brands, including cell phones, cameras, camcorders, stereos, computers, tablets, video games, and more. At any given time, many of these products are fully assembled and stored at the plant awaiting shipment to the vendors. Also stored at the plant are the expensive components used to manufacture the devices.
During the first week of your new employment, you learn that significant device and component inventory shortages have occurred over the past year resulting in substantial company losses. You suspect widespread internal employee theft and have begun considering the various physical, procedural, virtual, and other security control options available to address the theft issue. One of the security controls you contemplate employing is an administrative search procedure, which is often referred to as a package control program. From your discussions with colleagues in the security profession, you know that some employers have instituted administrative, non-coercive, care taking search programs that have very effectively mitigated internal theft losses. You believe that such a program would achieve similar results for ACME Electronics if properly implemented at the ACME facility.
You meet with corporate attorneys to discuss the feasibility of initiating an ACME Electronics administrative search program because you know these programs are controversial and sometimes result in significant legal issues with considerable potential for civil lawsuits filed against the company and its security operatives. After a brief introductory discussion with the attorneys, the corporation’s Chief Counsel provides you with a case study dealing with the implementation of a new package control system at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City and asks that you become completely familiar with the legal issues presented in the court case; the legal positions the plaintiff and the defendant advanced to the court; and the court’s ruling and rationale, including the important features of the search procedure instituted by the hospital. The Chief Counsel also asks that before any further corporate group discussions take place regarding the implementation of an administrative search program at ACME Electronics, you evaluate how this court decision might impact your facility’s security operations and how the results of this court decision would be used in any administrative search policy proposals you make to the corporate executives.
Writing Assignment: After reading and evaluating Judge Edward Weinfeld’s opinion in Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), linked below, consider the case in its entirety, particularly the court’s opinion, and respond to the following:
(1) Write a strong introduction, first stating the purpose of the paper, then providing a succinct recitation of the significant facts in this case.
(2) Describe the issues related to the search program the court needed to resolve.
(3) Explain the positions that Chenkin and Bellevue advanced to the court regarding Chenkin’s claim that the hospital’s package control system was unconstitutional.
(4) Provide details of the court’s ruling and rationale and describe the important features of the Bellevue search procedure cited by the court in rejecting Chenkin’s claims.
Based on your understanding of the Chenkin v. Bellevue Hospital court case, in addition to the independent research you complete using at least two additional sources, respond to the following in preparation for your follow-up discussions with the Chief Counsel about the implementation of an administrative search program at the ACME Electronics facility:
(5) As a practical matter, evaluate how this court decision might impact security operations. Be specific and comprehensive.
(6) Explain how the results of this case would be used in any policy proposals you make to the corporate executives.
Court Case Link:
Note: Other source material relating to different types of workplace searches can be located in the online classroom. Go to: CONTENT>COURSE RESOURCES>LINKS TO PROJECT 2 RESOURCES.
Formatting Requirements:
Use the American Psychological Association (APA) style manual in writing this paper.
Paper should begin with an appropriate introductory statement about the topic and a reference page.
You may access the following UMUC website as a reference for APA style requirements:
http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/gethelp-citing.cfm
Paper should be a minimum of 1,000 (minimum) to 1,500 (maximum) words
- · Double space
- · 12 pt. font
- · 1” margins
- · Use APA citations for all sources
- · Include reference page using APA format guidelines (not included in word count)
Additionally -
- · Create a cover page for your assignment (not included in word count)
- · Include your name
- · Course title and number
- · Project title
· Date of submission
- @
- 165 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $30.00. See answer's preview
******** * *********************** ******* ** **** discussion is to ****** ** *** *********** ** ************* ************** research ********** ** **** electronics ** ****** *** *** probable ***** ************* **** **** **** ** ************** search procedures ** * ********* **** have **** **** sparingly ** **** ******** heads in ********* ************* ******** ******** *** ******** ************* purposes the Supreme ***** recently *********** ** *** *********** ** conducting searches ******* the *********** ** probable ***** ** ******* in ******* ************* *** ** *** **** *********** *** **** a ****** ** ********* ** *** ****** **** ***** has resulted in ******* ************* *********** *** system while ******** to the **** down fourth ********* regulations is **** ******** **** ***** will concentrate ** the ******* vs ******** hospital ****** **** **** was ****** ******** ** ******** *********** specificationsIn the **** **** Chenkin *** *** plaintiff and ******** ******** the ********** Chenkin ** an ********* ******* ******** by Bellevue ******** *** ***** * *** **** ******* the hospital ******* ** ***** ********* control ******* ************ ** *** ******* ************* *** wages he **** **** he *** ********* *** employer however ********** ***** ****** ** ***** support *** fairness of *** ****** The sole born ** ********** *** both ******* is the ***************** ** the package ******* *********** one ** *** ******* ******** ** Manhattan **** **** 5600 employee *** ** ***** the ********** **** **** **** ****** * ****** to **** **** **** believed *** an ********* **** ** cases of pilferage ** *** property **** ******** *** not limited to ****** ****** ******** *** ********* *** instituted system ******** **** all ********* ***** *** two ** *** ******* exits *** security ******** Because of the **** personnel but limited security ***** ****** ******** **** *** **** but the ******** officers were *** authorized ** ********** ******** property ******** * ******** **** *** 2017)Although the ******** ***** ** *** ********* **** the system ****** *** ******* ******** had **** *********** was false as ***** *** no data ** ******* ** *************** ***** **** *** **** ******** ********* happened ****** weeks after implementation ** *** program ***** ** *** well ***** ** the ****** **** the ******** official ******** to ******** search *** *** ** ******* **** *** **** *** ***** **** ******* ******** repeated ****** *** he *** noted *** this **** ** *** ********* *** * five *** period *** ******** to ****** ** *** *********** ********* ***** * ******* **** *** heard ** * ******* ******* officer *** *** ruling was **** *** ********** ***** ***** because *** ****** *** **** The *********** ******* **** **** *** fourth ********* *** been ******** * ***** that ** ********** *** **** *** ******** ** ************* ********** ****** *** ************** ******* *** defendant ******* ****** **** ******* issue **** ******** ***** * ***** ****** ***** **** *** *********** could not ********* ******* ********* *********** when ** **** *********** would ****** The ******** **** **** that ** ***** ** unreasonable for *** ** not **** carry ******* ******** but ** ****** ********** **** all members ** the ***** **** ******* ** ** *** *********** ******* **** the procedure violated his ******* ***** *** ****** ********* (CHENKIN * BELLEVUE HOSP CTR ****** *** ***** issue needed to ** ******* *** whether ******* particular ******* *********** * ****** within *** precincts ** *** ****** ********* *** example ** this **** *** ********* ******* ** ** ******** ******* **** ** ***** ** hiding a ******** hence **** *** frisking *** ***** *** *** **** of ******* *** whether *** whole ********* *** ** line **** the ************ * ****** back **** **** ******** ******** is * **** of item ************* ********* ***** *** ****** ********* *** court *** **** ******** ** deliberate ******* ** *** ********** for the *********** ** ***** ******* materials ** *** **** **** **** ** *** ******* aware ** the ******** *********** The court *** ****** to determine ******* *** plaintiff’s **** was an isolated *** and ***** not ** compared to ***** ****** **** airports **** were associated **** ****** ******** **** (CHENKIN * BELLEVUE **** *** ****** ** *** ********** ******* brought about the ***** of privacy ************ with ********** ********* ** the *** ********** **** *** fourth ********* *** ********* **** right ** **** ******* *** *********** ********** the ********** nature ** the ******* ** he ******** **** ********* ********** were ***** searched ** ******** that *** case was unique *** different **** other ******** **** as ***** ** airports since he felt in such ********* strictures of the fourth ********* *** been relaxed *** **** ******* *** ******** ******* Bellevue ** the other hand believed **** *** plaintiff’s ********** ******** *** ************ ** **** *** organization *** ***** and ****** *** **** ** *** unthinkable to ******** ********** ******** ** privacy ************ the ******** **** ******* ****** ** *** employees ***** it *** ****** *** the complainant to carry ******** and ******* ******** **** ** **** ** was ***** ** ** searched ******** * ******** **** *** ****** *** court ***** **** ******* ****** **** ********* and **** ******** ******** ****** * bag *** subject to ********** ***** *** fourth ********* ******* *** policy *** highly publicized ***** *** complainant ***** *** have knowingly ******* private ***** The ********* ** ******* search ***** also ********* **** ***** was ** *********** ****** ********* could be frisked without ********* of *** ****** Further *** ********** actions of ******** ** ** ******* **** ********** as ** might **** ******** *** security ** ***** ********* ******* ** **** **** *** ************ of the ****** *** reasonable ******* of **** instances of ********* The court ********* ruled in ***** ** *** ********** *** ****** ********** impacts *** ******** ** *** ******* ** the ******** head ** ********* ** *** **** **** *** law would ** on ***** **** ******** **** ***** ******** raised *** ******* *** ********** frisking ***** from **** *** organization ****** ** **** enough to ********* **** ****** but ***** **** ** ************* ** *** *** ********* Setting ** ** ************ ** *** **** ******** ******** ** *** exits **** ** ********* ** ***** legal actions ******** ********* ****** ** trained enough ** realize that confiscating ******* ******** ** *** ***** ***** *** *** *** ****** ****** **** *** *** they **** **** those *** ****** *** ****** **** ************ *** ******** *** ************ ****** *** ** * ******** information ****** ** document ********* of ********* in **** ******* ******** *** launched ******** * ******** **** CTR ****** ***** ******* ***** ***** ** *** ******* **** security process ** ** **** not ******* ******** of *** ****** amendment ** **** also ********* **** ** *** importance ** * ******** *********** systems **** **** realize ******** ***** ******* that ***** arise ***** set ***** ********* *** **** ******* ** **** also ********* **** to ********* assess **** ******* *** ******* *** *** ** ************* to the entire ********************** * ******** **** *** * ****** ******* * ******** **** CTR * Y * *** * 479 ***** *** (1979) * Leaglecom ****** ********* * ***** **** **** **********************************************************************************************************
