Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

houston16revival

(953 posts)
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 06:27 PM Apr 2016

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Can Make You Leave Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the DMV

Can states make you abandon your Fourth Amendment rights if you want to enjoy the “privilege” of driving? That’s the question at the heart of one of the most consequential cases that the Supreme Court will decide this term, in terms of practical impact upon ordinary Americans. Birchfield v. North Dakota involves challenges to Minnesota and North Dakota statutes that make it a crime for drivers to refuse warrantless chemical tests of their blood, breath, or urine to detect the presence of alcohol. The Supreme Court consolidated three cases to be reviewed. Two involved individuals who were convicted for declining to take a blood test and a breath test, respectively; the third involved an individual who refused field sobriety tests, was taken to a hospital and subjected to a blood test, and was later convicted of drunk driving.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bernick/supreme-court-to-decide-w_b_9742132.html

Hope they apply this to employment screening too. It's intrusive, embarrassing, annoying, and
logically backwards (guilty until proven innocent).

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Can Make You Leave Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the DMV (Original Post) houston16revival Apr 2016 OP
If your employer is not the government, then you're pretty much SOL, with this decision or not. X_Digger Apr 2016 #1
So my employer houston16revival Apr 2016 #2
It's not a violation of the 4th amendment, no. X_Digger Apr 2016 #5
K&R n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #3
Rights aren't optional discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #4

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
1. If your employer is not the government, then you're pretty much SOL, with this decision or not.
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:51 AM
Apr 2016

The bill of rights protects you from the government, not each of us from the other.

If you come over to my house, I don't have to let you preach a sermon. Me kicking your backside to the curb is not an impingement of your right to free speech or your right to practice religion.

Absent special legislation (like title VII of the civil rights act of 1964, OSHA, or EEOC guidelines), employers are under no obligation to protect your privacy, speech, etc.

If you're fired for no reason, you can't claim a violation of 'due process'.

That's not how rights work.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
5. It's not a violation of the 4th amendment, no.
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:53 AM
Apr 2016
So my employer has the right to search my house?

And I can't do anything about it?


If you agreed to allow home searches as a condition of employment, and you live alone, then you could refuse and be fired. Could the employer bust down the door? No, of course not, that would be breaking and entering, and trespassing.

Silly example, though. Here's a more relevant one-

Many folks have their cars searched randomly for contraband at work, while on company property. Absent special legislation (some states have this), this is not a violation. It's part of the agreement you agree to when you work there. Just as drug screening is-- you agree to take the test in order to work there. You can always refuse, and find work elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you to pee in a cup.

Some employees are subject to random bag searches. This also is not a violation of the right protected by the fourth amendment. You voluntarily allow the search as a condition of employment. Refuse, and be fired.

The bill of rights is a limitation on the government-- it's right there in the preamble:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? Abuse of whose powers?

My employer has no obligation to allow me to campaign for a candidate at the office. Absent special protection (like union organizing), employers are under no obligation to protect 'free speech'.

What is so hard to understand?

I swear, there should be a $50 tax credit for a refresher civics 101 class.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,578 posts)
4. Rights aren't optional
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:49 AM
Apr 2016

Those that think they are need to pick a new place to live.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ― Samuel Adams
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Civil Liberties»Supreme Court to Decide W...