Constitutional Rights are afforded to every American Citizen by the first ten amendments to the Constitution or more commonly known as The Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment of The Bill of Rights applies to all and states, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons" (para.4). When a person accepts a position anywhere, whether at a small family owned grocery store or a major corporation, one does so with the understanding that some inalienable rights will be given up. This paper examines if an employer can crush those rights by using lie detector tests, monitor employee phone calls and emails; use surveillance cameras, and issue random drug-testing.
The American Civil Liberties Union states, "drug testing of individuals without cause is ineffective, expensive and, often times, illegal" (para. 1) as well as, "drug testing of individuals without cause is an affront to the Fourth Amendment" (para. 2). While the fourth amendment does state, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons," it does not imply that only the employee is to be secure in his person (para.4). At Kelsey High School, the administration has come to the conclusion that drug-testing while expensive and legal is in fact, effective. The children's safety while in the care of the school is the number one priority. Personal privacy is not being violated when a teacher is asked to take a drug test that will only ensure our youth is in safe hands.
Lie detector tests
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 prohibits private employers to request an employee to submit to a lie detector test whether that test is, for pre-employment or during an employee's term of employment, (Barnes, Dworkin, & Richards, 1980) Kelsey High school realizes that an employee may file suit against the school if he believes that they are wrongly accused. Furthermore, unless the employee is under investigation for embezzlement or any type of economic loss which would affect the school, the school board does not have a right to request that an employee submit to a polygraph test, unless the employee had direct access to the material. In cases such as theft should an employee should have direct access to the material or materials in question then the school would have a probable cause to believe that an employee is in fact, embezzling for his personal gain. The board of directors would then have a right to request that the employee submit to a polygraph test. However, before such an action is executed the employee has a right to know in writing what he is being accused of. If in agreement, he should sign a written document in order to consent to the test. Since this is a delicate matter, in such circumstances especially if the school wrongly accuses an employee research should always be done before tacking such actions as polygraph testing. Under the constitutional right of due process The University of Nebraska Medical Center (2000) stated, "those who are found guilty should be held responsible however, fairness here is specified in terms of the process rather than the outcome" (para. 25).
Under the Fourth Amendment, the court confirmed that what a person intentionally exposes to the community, even in his own home or office is not a topic of the Fourth Amendment security, but what one seeks to protect as personal even in an area available to the public may be constitutionally protected. A person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot sensibly expect that his action will be protected from the public eye or from surveillance cameras by the law.
This paper will examine the grounds why surveillance cameras are needed in public schools to avoid and discourage crime including law practices. The local Kelsey High school has an open campus policy for three, twenty-five minute lunch periods. Every year, three million young...