[An employer can include in the company handbook a clause forcing you to submit to a search of your person and vehicle on company property or face termination (I don't know if McD's does/QUOTE] Most companys who have something like that are companys that have stuff that employee's would still and could resell or get enouhg parts to make one of their own ( like ruger). Again even with that most also say if they have grounds to think you are stealing company goods. Ruger's factory in the next town over does not even have such a policy giving them the right o search cars. MCD has no such policy nor did i sign such paper work giving them the right to search my person and or car at any time with out a court ordered search warrant.
If your work does catch on that you might be armed they will likely call the cops before confronting you. The police will do the search (for the officers protection of course) and then that knife that is just over the legal length or considered just a little too spring assisted turns losing your job into a criminal offense.
They could call the cops all they want again i signed no such paper work letting them search me or my persons. The cops would show up and ask to search me or my car ( They would have no grounds for such a search and it would turn into herassment and would open then up to suits by me) So with out a court order to search my car with a list of what they are looking for and taking from me or my car no search would take place. Even if they jumped the hoops got the warrent and found a gun what then? They found a legal gun in side my car and i have a permit to carry ( even if i don;t have a permit it's still legal) If they did take away my permit i would then just open carry. As for the knife the legal length in NH last time i checked was around 7'' or something i show a guy carrying a hunting knife on his side the other day at pizza hut. I have no need for a knife that big. As for it being considered just a little too spring assisted i don't see that happing seeing as how Walmart sells them. Look up Terry VS Ohio the police must have grounds to think a crime has been commited or is about to take place. A person just having a gun is not enough grounds for a search..
The Court assessed the reasonableness of the police activity here by comparing it to activity that would ordinarily require a warrant. “... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.” In a situation where the police obtained a warrant, they would have brought these facts and inferences to the attention of a judicial officer before embarking on the actions in question. Post hoc judicial review of police activity is equally facilitated by these facts and inferences.
The Court also emphasized that the standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate. Moreover,
And simple “ ‘good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.’ ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ only in the discretion of the police.” — quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)
The reasonableness inquiry takes into account the “nature and extent of the governmental interests involved,” including the general interest in crime prevention, the officer’s specific concern for his own safety, the citizen’s interest in his own privacy and dignity, and the extent to which the particular search in question intruded upon those interests. “Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.”
Even searches that start out as reasonable may “violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of their intolerable intensity and scope.” Thus, the scope of the search must be justified by the circumstances that led the police to undertake it in the first place.
[quoteJustice White joined the opinion of the Court but suggested that
“There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.” (392 U.S. 1, at 34).
With regard to the lack of obligation to respond when detained under circumstances of Terry, this opinion came to be regarded as persuasive authority in some jurisdictions, and the Court cited these remarks in dicta in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), at 439. However, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Court held that neither of these remarks was controlling in a situation where a state law required a detained person to identify himself.
]