Employer says "NO!" to guns in cars.

[captkilowatt]

These are the answers I expected. I am quite sure that just about every employer requires new employes to sigh away their ability to refuse a warrantless search and to legally carry a firearm. I have ALWAYS had to. Finding a new job will be in my best interest. I am known at this company as a "gun-nut" and parking across the street would draw attention to me as I have been quite vocal about the company's war on its employes. I don't take well to servitude.

[longtooth]

I like your last sentence. I will pray that you are able to find one if you choose to quit or loose the one you have.
Will help you find one if I can but I may not be much help there.
LT

[Kalrog]

... just about every employer requires new employes to sigh away their ability to refuse a warrantless search and to legally carry a firearm.

You can't sign away those rights. You can agree to it as a condition of employment, but if you later refuse the worst that can happen is they fire you. They cannot legally compel you to submit to a search without a proper legal document (search warrant).

[jimlongley]

... just about every employer requires new employes to sigh away their ability to refuse a warrantless search and to legally carry a firearm.

You can't sign away those rights. You can agree to it as a condition of employment, but if you later refuse the worst that can happen is they fire you. They cannot legally compel you to submit to a search without a proper legal document (search warrant).

Try working for the gov't - when I was at TSA, we were REQUIRED to sign to allow search of body and soul, as well as provide a copy of the combination or key to our private cubby holes.

[srothstein]

I have a couple points and some have already been made. First, I am not sure that driving onto the parking lot with a pistol on your hip is going to be a violation of 30.06. the reason I say this is that 30.06 specifically states it applies when carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in amotor vehcile that you own (along with the other conditions) you are not carrying under your CHL authority. You are not even violating the law or meeting an exception. It is specifically written that this is allowed as part of the elements of the offense (the state needs to prove this is not true before an offense is even committed). Remember that a CHL is an exception to 46.02 applying and under these conditions it is not applicable to be excepted from.

Of course, I am not a laywer and this is my interpretation of the law. I recommend that you no tbe the test case.

Second, you can be forced to sign anything as a condition of employment. You can still refuse the consent to search since the SCOTUS has ruled many times that consent can be revoked at any time. You will be fired for refusing the consent at the time needed, but it can be done. If the search takes place after you refuse the consent (as some employers may be wont to do), the worst that can happen is you would be fired. The evidence would not stand up in court for any criminal case at all.

And finally, as has been pointed out, the deputies working for your boss off duty must still obey all of the laws. They are always peace officers and all the laws restricting them still apply. The laws on unreasonable searches apply to all people who are working for the govenrment, either directly (peace officer on duty) or indirectly ( a company employee making a search for evidence of a crime to take to the police, especially if asked to by the police).

So, the question you need to ask yourself is how important the job is to you. Do you want to obey thier rules and keep the job or break them and chance being fired? If you really feel the company is bad, I would recommend obeying the rules until you can find another job, then quit instead of being fired. Let them know exactly why you quit. If they lose enough good people, the policy will change.

[WildBill]

This is a question for any LEOs out there. If you were hired as security and the person refused the search what would you do?

[KBCraig]

... just about every employer requires new employes to sigh away their ability to refuse a warrantless search and to legally carry a firearm.

You can't sign away those rights. You can agree to it as a condition of employment, but if you later refuse the worst that can happen is they fire you. They cannot legally compel you to submit to a search without a proper legal document (search warrant).

Try working for the gov't - when I was at TSA, we were REQUIRED to sign to allow search of body and soul, as well as provide a copy of the combination or key to our private cubby holes.

As Kalrog said, that wasn't forced, it was something you voluntarily agreed to as a condition of employment.

If you'd said no, they could have refused to hire you. If you'd refused after being hired, they could have fired you. But in either case, they couldn't have searched you or your private belongings without either your consent, or a warrant.

Just like the job you worked: as a TSA screener, you didn't search anyone without their consent (no matter how grudging or coerced). They always had the option to refuse, and leave.

I also have to point out that TSA are not LEOs, for the very reason I mentioned earlier: LEOs are bound by the 4th Amendment and all current court rulings about the scope of searches. Boarding a plane, coming to work, etc., is neither Probable Cause nor Reasonable Articulable Suspicion so that a LEO would be legally allowed to search.

If you ever attend an event where you must pass through security to enter, you might notice that the security screening is done by private security, but there are LEOs standing by watching. The private guard can turn to the LEO and tell him, "Look, I found a gun!", which then gives the LEO PC/RAS to arrest and/or search further.

[jimlongley]

As Kalrog said, that wasn't forced, it was something you voluntarily agreed to as a condition of employment.

If you'd said no, they could have refused to hire you. If you'd refused after being hired, they could have fired you. But in either case, they couldn't have searched you or your private belongings without either your consent, or a warrant.

Just like the job you worked: as a TSA screener, you didn't search anyone without their consent (no matter how grudging or coerced). They always had the option to refuse, and leave.

I also have to point out that TSA are not LEOs, for the very reason I mentioned earlier: LEOs are bound by the 4th Amendment and all current court rulings about the scope of searches. Boarding a plane, coming to work, etc., is neither Probable Cause nor Reasonable Articulable Suspicion so that a LEO would be legally allowed to search.

If you ever attend an event where you must pass through security to enter, you might notice that the security screening is done by private security, but there are LEOs standing by watching. The private guard can turn to the LEO and tell him, "Look, I found a gun!", which then gives the LEO PC/RAS to arrest and/or search further.

It may not have been "forced" but it was most certainly coerced. We were hired, and started our training before being told that signing certain papers were a condition of employment, and if we didn't sign we would be fired and possibly prosecuted. Of course we were not actually told what we would be prosecuted for, just a reference to some US Code, which did not seem to apply when several of us looked it up. The papers were presented to us in the rush of training and orientation and there was little or no explanation given, just that we would not continue to be employed by TSA if they were not signed, not that we would not be emplyed, but that we would not continue.

Many of the "recruits" were, like myself, ex-telecomm techies who had been out of work for long periods of time (my unemployment had long since run out) and we felt cornered into signing, particularly with the threat of some sort of criminal prosecution hanging over our heads.

If we were given the option before we signed the original employment paper and took the oath, then I would agree that it was voluntary, but coming as it did, after administration of the oath and signing what amounted to enlistment papers, it was way less than voluntary. It was almost like their non-compliance with Texas law, where a private security company barred CHLs from carrying in the facility, a private hotel conference center, because they were the Federal Govenrment and they said so. TSA played fast and loose with legalities, knowing that they could get away with it.

As far as TSA searches were concerned, we were still bound by all the rules that LEOs are, including the scope of searches, which is why, among other things, finding controlled substances in carry on bags is routinely ignored. We even took passes on guns spotted in checked bags, even if they were not declared (which we had no mechanism in place to know) as long as the bag otherwise was clear.

Any passenger who got past a certain line, or any bag that made it to a certain point, was going to get searched, permission notwithstanding, or it would be considered PC/RAS for the passenger to be detained and interviewed by a LEO, implied consent having taken place at the line and refusal no longer being an option, and the passenger and bag were going to get the fine toothed comb treatment, so "always" is not applicable. TSA's stand was that anyone who got that far had had plenty of chances to reconsider and that the sudden change of heart was suspicious in and of itself.

We had one "gentleman" who put his briefcase on the carry on screening belt, and at the last second realized that his carry gun was inside it. As the screener who was running the x-ray spotted the gun and called out his alarm, this worthy went so far as to try to reach into the machine to get his case back, but he had crossed the line of no return, and ended up with a nice set of matching silver bracelets in honor of his being too stupid to fly. I don't know the final outcome, but I do know he left the airport in a patrol car and his bags were all subjected to very minute inpection - including the locked ones, and they also left the airport in a patrol car. I do wish I knew the final disposition of that one.

[Penn]

This is a question for any LEOs out there. If you were hired as security and the person refused the search what would you do?

Even a security guard would be stupid to force a search. Once they decline, you document the facts, refuse them entry and report it to their supervisor.

[WildBill]

This is a question for any LEOs out there. If you were hired as security and the person refused the search what would you do?

Even a security guard would be stupid to force a search. Once they decline, you document the facts, refuse them entry and report it to their supervisor.

I was thinking more about if the car were already on the company property. Would they call the supervisor and force the employee to leave? I wonder if the company would fire the employee at that time for refusing the search or they would just make them leave the property.

[DParker]

Second, you can be forced to sign anything as a condition of employment. You can still refuse the consent to search since the SCOTUS has ruled many times that consent can be revoked at any time. You will be fired for refusing the consent at the time needed, but it can be done. If the search takes place after you refuse the consent (as some employers may be wont to do), the worst that can happen is you would be fired. The evidence would not stand up in court for any criminal case at all.

It might...although in a case against the employer rather than the employee. Here's my thinking:

I'm assuming the OP locks his vehicle after parking it (especially if he leaves a firearm in it.) As such, any search of that vehicle after consent has been refused would involve breaking into it, as well as whatever locked container the OP keeps his gun in (assuming one of those as well.) I'm not able to find the applicable TX statutes (if any) so I don't know if the law allows employers to break into an employee's private vehicle, even if parked on company property...but I tend to doubt it. I could be wrong though.

[KD5NRH]

I was thinking more about if the car were already on the company property. Would they call the supervisor and force the employee to leave? I wonder if the company would fire the employee at that time for refusing the search or they would just make them leave the property.

That would depend on the company. If there's a specific reason to search a particular person's vehicle, that's fine, but I don't do random fishing expeditions just to appease someone's paranoia, and almost all of the good guards I've talked to feel the same way. They'll be down to the mall ninjas and Taco Bell rejects in no time.

Of course, it helps to know the guy who taught most of the current client's managers' CHL courses, so if they want to do it, I know which cars to search before I quit. Unless we get a raise soon, bagging groceries will surpass our wage by next summer, so I'm not really worried about the money.

And DP. I don't know of any security company that would tolerate the liability of having their guards even know that was going on. I can't imagine that a court would find breaking into vehicles at random to be anything short of BMV.

[Briankey]

If an employer will not allow a CHL to protect themselves at work or in their Parking Lot, and something Happens to the employee, robbed, beat down etc.. why couldn't that employer be sued for not protecting an employee?.

And does anyone see employers in the future being tasked by Law to protect employees since they won't allow an employee to protect themselves?.

[KD5NRH]

If an employer will not allow a CHL to protect themselves at work or in their Parking Lot, and something Happens to the employee, robbed, beat down etc.. why couldn't that employer be sued for not protecting an employee?.

Here's an approach; based on scanner listening and news reports, assaultive offenses that could be prevented with a handgun happen a lot more often than car fires that could be controlled with a hand extinguisher, yet no company would even consider a rule prohibiting employees from carrying fire extinguishers in their cars. Imagine the liability when an employees loses a car to a minor fire, and is possibly injured or killed in the incident.

As to whether it is a reasonable precaution, 288,000 Texans have spent the not insignificant amount of money to get licensed and maintain that license, and we have no numbers on how many car carry under HB815 without a CHL, but I'd bet even the 288k is more than have spent the $15 every couple of years to keep a working fire extinguisher in the car. (Unless required by law or company rules in a commercial-use vehicle, of course.)

[boomerang]

If an employer will not allow a CHL to protect themselves at work or in their Parking Lot, and something Happens to the employee, robbed, beat down etc.. why couldn't that employer be sued for not protecting an employee?.

They can.