Case Study Chenkin v Bellevue
Case Study
Chenkin v Bellevue
Introduction
In this discussion, the purpose is to ensure that there is an assessment of the available possibilities that can be used in dealing with administrative research and procedures that are available. These are the possible procedures that are highlighted by ACME electronics. Besides the methods, there are viable and probable ramifications of legal solutions that are attached to the process. Security heads in different organizations have been economically using administrative search procedures. Historical assessments indicate that the systems are reserved or criminal investigatory purposes. Still, in the recent developments, the Supreme Court made deliberation on the possibilities of dealing with the conduction of searches without having to acquire a probable cause or warrant that allows for these searches to be conducted. Regardless, the ACME electronics have under different circumstances been victims of cases of pilferage. These pilferage cases have occurred in the recent past, and the outcomes have been a reduction of the productivity that is generated in the institution. Sticking to the regulations that are stipulated by the Fourth Amendment is an instrumental decision that ACME can take to ensure that they are not suffering from the losses in the organization. In this paper analysis, the focus will be on discussing the Chenkin vs. Bellevue hospital case that was in 1979. The fact is instrumental because it presents the groundbreaking conducive rules when handling security circles.
Case specifications
An analysis of the case states that Paul Chenkin was the Plaintiff. On the other hand, Bellevue hospital was acting as the defendant in the case. In this process, Chenkin worked as an assistant in the chemist, and Chenkin was also employed by Bellevue hospital. Chenkin, therefore, made steps and filled a lawsuit which was against the hospital. The reason why Chenkin filed a lawsuit is because of the presence of the pilferages that were taking place in the control package. Besides, Chenkin was aiming at getting reimbursements that were against the wages that he lost at the time when he was suspended. On the side of the employer; however, they reinforced on the different stance and also handling the issues of support and fairness that was taking place in the system. The problem where contention was emerging from is how the package system was constituted constitutionally. Bellevue in the Manhattan region was accorded the status of a big hospital, and it was operating a total of 5600 employees. Therefore, it was time for the management to develop a system that they believed would improve on the rise of pilferage cases, especially on the hospital properties. The pilferage controls were included, but also they were not limited to aspects such as equipment flatware and towels. In the system, the dictation was that all employees are required to use two of these existing in the company when they are searching for security. The reason for such actions is that there was huge security personnel. The company, however, limited security forces. In the organization, there was an advocating of random searches where security officers could conduct these searches, but there was no authorization to confiscate any items that were found.
In the case, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit to seek damages and injuries that he faced during the refusal of the random searches. The lawsuit was heard before the selected justice system. It was a neutral officer tasked with understanding the case. In the ruling, it emerged that the suspension of the Plaintiff would stand. The reason for the judgment is a fair identified system (CHENKIN v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR, 2017). For the complainant, the feelings were different. The main issue in question was the negativity on the Fourth Amendment, in which a reasonable claim was made in the process. The reason why the case was received and analyzed is based on the plaintiff expectancy theory and also an analysis of the reasonableness ground. In the defense, the defendant was adamant and stated that there was no violation of the privacy because of the prior notice. For the other opinion, there was a benefit of the doubt for the complainant possessing the materials. The reason is that in the best knowledge of the complainant, a search was to be conducted; hence he would not risk. Regardless, the complainant maintained that there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The first issue that was vital to be resolved was a determination on whether particular actions did constitute the need to conduct a search. Further, it was essential to decide and determine whether these issues were in line with the Fourth Amendment. An example is an issue that was raised by the Plaintiff, where he was searched (CHENKIN v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., 2017). The Plaintiff could be hiding informative materials, and it is the reason why he was frisked. It was the role of the court to find out whether the used procedures were in line with the available regulations. Information extracted from the Fourth Amendment highlights that a closed bag pack is protected, and hence there was a violation in this case. Further, the court also needed to make deliberations on whether it was vital for the Plaintiff to carry sensitive materials in his bag. Hence the reason why the court was asked tasked with the assessment of the case.
The submissions that were done by Chenkin raised the concern about the issues of privacy, especially when it came to handling private belonging that was contained in the bag. The fourth Amendment was protecting these individual bags. According to the complainant, there was a questioning of the subjective nature of processes that were found in women’s pocketbooks, and these were aspects that were not searched (CHENKIN v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR, 2017). The complainant believed that the case was a unique one, and also it was different from other searches that were taking place in the airports. For Bellevue hospital, they found that the subjective nature and complaints raised were unreasonable. Further, Bellevue stated that the policies public. Therefore, the employees in the organization had a piece of knowledge about the policies. The complainants were naïve to tag along with personal or private information, yet he knew there was a search that was to take place.
According to the court ruling, it emerged that the issues raised were justified, and they were to be conducted in the right manner. Moreover, the personal property in an individual’s bag is protected under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, for the policy, findings suggest that they were highly publicized. The situation, therefore, challenges the complainant by raising the discussion that he could not have carried the property knowingly. The Plaintiff’s action, where he refused to be checked, was also concerning activities. The ruling is crucial as it generates positive thoughts and regulations on operations of security in institutions. The court ruled in favor of the defendant. There is a need for the company to establish appropriate communication and set up alternatives that would be applied to the process of frisking that takes place in the organization. Therefore, the findings of the court justified the security process, stating that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The results also dictated the importance of having reliable and robust information systems.
Reference
CHENKIN v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., E. (2017). CHENKIN v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., N. Y. C., ETC. | 479 F.Supp. 207 (1979) | Leagle.com. Leagle. http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979686479FSupp207_1658/CHENKIN%20v.%20BEL LEVUE%20HOSP.%20CTR.,%20N.%20Y.%20C.,%20ETC.