Legal-Challenges-Confronting-Private-Security-Operations-Administrative-Searches-assignment-help-
Scenario: The ACME Company manufactures various electronic devices for a variety of well-known brands. This includes 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. As the Corporate Security Director for the ACME Company, you have been alerted that significant inventory shortages have been occurring for the assembled devices and the stock components used to manufacture the electronic devices resulting in substantial company losses. You also have obtained information that these losses are the result of extensive employee theft.
During previous discussions with private security leaders from other organizations, you sought more information about the effectiveness of an administrative search program as an option to address internal theft. You call a meeting with your security team and other company directorate heads, to include the organization’s legal counsel, to discuss possible security options to thwart the reported losses. The discussion at this meeting centers on the fact that in private industry/business, some employers institute an administrative, non-coercive, care taking search programs to address real or perceived property losses at the hands of their employees. But in establishing such a program, there are various issues that must be considered beyond the impact it might have on employee morale. Everyone agreed that company executives must thoroughly vet the legality of an administrative search under consideration and consider the potential for civil lawsuits filed against the company and its security operatives for such reasons as invasion of privacy, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. Everyone was also concerned about legal claims that may result from the manner in which the search is conducted. For instance, search protocols that are found by a court to be unreasonable, discriminatory, discourteous, unfair, highly intrusive, socially unacceptable conduct, or instituted for frivolous reasons will likely lead to successful claims by employees. All participants at the meeting agreed this would be a significant threat to company assets that must be avoided.
Writing Assignment: Based on your independent research that includes at least three sources, in preparation for developing a possible policy proposal to establish an administrative search program (not criminal) for presentation to the corporate executive staff, write an academic paper that explores the use and legalities of an administrative, non-coercive, care taking search program instituted by private security operatives to address real or perceived company losses resulting from significant internal theft. 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), found in the eReadings section of the online classroom, consider the 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 be sure to describe the important features of the search procedure instituted by Belleville that in the view of the court rejected Chenkin’s claims.
(5) As a practical matter, evaluate how this court decision impacts security operations. Be specific and comprehensive.
(6) Explain how the results of this case will be used in any policy proposals you make to the corporate executives.
The length of the proposal will be between 1,000 and 1,500 words and students will use and properly cite and reference in APA format at least three sources, including the court’s opinion. Course instructional material may be used and cited, but may not be included in the three sources required.
Source Information: (Should be placed in eReadings)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2263945/chenkin-v-bellevue-hosp-ctr-nyc-etc/?
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/searches_at_work_legal_issues_to_consider.html
http://www.ppspublishers.com/ez/html/060804txtb.html
http:/www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-searches-dos-donts-29770.html
http://www.workplacefairness.org/searches
http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/workplace-searches/
.
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.
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
| Criteria | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Content of the paper has a stated purpose and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the significant facts in the court case Range 9.0 – 10.0 |
Content of the paper has a stated purpose and demonstrates a good understanding of the significant facts in the court case Range 8.0 – 8.9 |
Content of the paper has a stated purpose and demonstrates a suitable understanding of the significant facts in the court case Range 7.0 – 7.9 |
Content of the paper has a stated purpose and demonstrates limited or no understanding of the significant facts in the court case. Range D = 6.0 – 6.9 F = 0.0 – 5.9 |
|
|
Content of the paper demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve Range 9.0 – 10.0 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve Range 8.0 – 8.9 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve Range 7.0 – 7.9 |
Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve Range D = 6.0 – 6.9 F = 0.0 – 5.9 |
|
|
Content of the paper demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional Range 13.5.0 – 15.0 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional Range 12.0 – 13.4 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional Range 10.5 – 11.9 |
Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional Range D = 9.0 – 10.4 F = 0.0 – 89.9 |
|
|
Content of the paper demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant Range: 13.5 – 15.0 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant Range: 12.0 – 13.4 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant Range: 10.5 – 11.9 |
Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant Range: D = 9.0 – 10.4 F = 0 – 8.9 |
|
|
Content of the paper demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations Points available: 13.5 – 15 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations Range 12.0 – 13.4 |
Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations Range 10.5 -11.9 |
Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations Range D = 9.0 – 10.4 F = 0.0 – 8.9 |
|
|
Content of the paper provides a comprehensive explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives Range 13.5 – 15.0 |
Content of the paper provides a good explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives Range 12.0 – 13.4 |
Content of the paper provides a suitable explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives Range 10.5 -11.9 |
Content of the paper provides limited or noexplanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives Range D= 9.0 – 10.4 F= 0.0 – 8.9 |
|
|
Paper is formatted exactly as required, all required citations and references are present and APA standards are followed in every respect. Range 9.0 – 10.0 |
Paper is formatted as required with minor/ inconsequential deviations, resource requirements are met, citations and references are present and APA standards are followed. Range 8.0 – 8.9 |
Paper is mostly formatted as required but missing some required elements/ sources or some APA errors are evident. Range 7.0 – 7.9 |
Paper is missing major elements, lacks required sources or APA is not followed however a different citation method is used correctly. Range D = 6.0 – 6.9 F = 0.0 – 5.9 |
|
|
No or minor English and grammar usage errors. Range 9.0 – 10.0 |
Only a few minor/ inconsequential mistakes in English and grammar. Range 8.0 – 8.9 |
While there are some mistakes in English and grammar, they still do not interfere with understanding the student’s response or comments Range 7.0 – 7.9 |
Many mistakes evident in English/grammar usage. Range D = 6.0 – 7.9 F = 0.0 – 5.9 |
|
| Overall Score |
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!
NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
