Employer search of your vehicle in parking lot?

[jazr45acp]

Hi, my new to this site and must say it's quite informative. My first question is, can your employer search your vehicle without your consent when parked in "their" parking lot? I work for a municipality and the parking area is enclosed by a high fence. Thanks and hope you guys have a wonderful day.

[seamusTX]

Welcome to the forum.

They can't legally search your vehicle without your consent.

However, they may be able to fire you for not giving consent. (Many public employers have policies that make it a little harder to fire people, and perhaps you are covered by a union contract.)

If they call the cops and the cops have probable cause to search your vehicle, they can do it without a warrant.

- Jim

[jazr45acp]

But, if you have a CHL and not breaking any laws by having a weapon deemed legal and not in plain sight, then what probable cause could the cops have for searching a vehicle parked on company property? My company is anti-CHL to the max. Thanks for your insight.

[pbandjelly]

good luck.
if your employer feels inclined to say that you were threatening people, or talkin' bout guns at work, maybe the Fuzz would use that as PC.
kinda up to them.
so, you've got a CHL and have yer heater tucked away in yer car.
not against the law, so no arrest, ticket, whateva.
howeva, you can get canned.

my employer feels they can do this as well. fortunately, my particular job skill is in high demand, so I'm not toooo worried.


ETA: you don't need a CHL to have a SmokeWagon in yer car, legally.

[seamusTX]

But, if you have a CHL and not breaking any laws by having a weapon deemed legal and not in plain sight, then what probable cause could the cops have for searching a vehicle parked on company property?

Drug-sniffing dogs are the most common justification in situations like that.

There are other hypothetical reasons: Blood on the bumper. Matches the description of a vehicle used in a crime.

- Jim

[Mithras61]

The company does NEED probable cause, though. They can just demand that as a condition of your continued employment they get to search your vehicle. If you consent and have a firearm, and that violates company policy, then they can fire you.

If you have received a copy of the company policy, and it is written in compliance with PC 30.06, and the parking lot is posted as well, then you can be prosecuted for criminal trespass by a license holder, since you have received notice and the facility is posted (If the parking lot is not posted, you might maybe have an out, but I wouldn't bet my freedom & CHL on it).

If you are in a high-demand occupation, it may be worth your time to find an employer that isn't quite so rabid about it. Otherwise, it sounds like you may be S.O.L.

You may want to check the exact wording of the policy against PC30.06. If it doens't match up and the lot is not posted, you can't be prosecuted for having it in your vehicle (you can be fired, however).

If SB534 is passed into law & signed, they won't be able to fire you for THAT (but they'll likely find another excuse).

[txinvestigator]

The company does NEED probable cause, though. They can just demand that as a condition of your continued employment they get to search your vehicle. If you consent and have a firearm, and that violates company policy, then they can fire you.

If you have received a copy of the company policy, and it is written in compliance with PC 30.06, and the parking lot is posted as well, then you can be prosecuted for criminal trespass by a license holder, since you have received notice and the facility is posted (If the parking lot is not posted, you might maybe have an out, but I wouldn't bet my freedom & CHL on it).

If you are in a high-demand occupation, it may be worth your time to find an employer that isn't quite so rabid about it. Otherwise, it sounds like you may be S.O.L.

You may want to check the exact wording of the policy against PC30.06. If it doens't match up and the lot is not posted, you can't be prosecuted for having it in your vehicle (you can be fired, however).

If SB534 is passed into law & signed, they won't be able to fire you for THAT (but they'll likely find another excuse).

The issue of probale cause is misstated here; but it is irrelevant.

An employer does not need "probable cause" to do anything. PC applies to the governmet and the police.

Your company CAN have a policy that all vehicles are subject to search at any time. If you refuse, you could be terminated depending on the policy.

If anyone wants to discuss warrantless searches and vehicles, I would be happy to IN ANOTHER THREAD, so as to keep this one ON TOPIC.

[txinvestigator]

The company does NEED probable cause, though. They can just demand that as a condition of your continued employment they get to search your vehicle. If you consent and have a firearm, and that violates company policy, then they can fire you.

Upon further review of your statement, it appears you meant that the company does not need probable cause. Yes?

[KD5NRH]

Drug-sniffing dogs are the most common justification in situations like that.

There was some discussion on another board some time back about trying to get some stoners to work out the process of putting bong water into small, fragile vials that could be used to pre-scent a few cars for this.

I never heard any more about it, but can you imagine how quickly they'd stop doing that if the HR director and plant manager's cars always caught the dogs' attention?

According to yet another board, Disney sometimes uses gun/ammo/something sniffing dogs in the emplyee lots, which seems like it would be easily foiled by a similar method, though easier since it wouldn't require any inherently illegal materials to be used.

[Commander]

In your first post you stated that you worked for a "municipality"...in your second post you state that your "company" is anti-CHL. Which do you work for?

[seamusTX]

There was some discussion on another board some time back about trying to get some stoners to work out the process of putting bong water ... the HR director and plant manager's cars ...

It's fun to fantasize, but I think it would be extremely risky to try something like that.

Security cameras are everywhere, and they're sometimes hidden.

I'd like to see an ammo-sniffing dog's reaction to my car. I often have bags of spent shotgun hulls in the trunk, and even I can smell them.

- Jim

[jazr45acp]

I work for a municipality which is considered a company if that makes since to you. We aren't owned by the city, but provide water services, electricity to the community. We are very similar to SAWS in San Antonio or LCRA in Austin. We are very, very similar. We don't have any postings regarding PC30.06 anywhere. The public is welcome to enter our facilities with CHL with no problem since there is no PC30.06 signs. Employees however, can't carry or have them in their vehicles when they are on the clock. Hope SB534 passes very soon.

[Skiprr]

According to yet another board, Disney sometimes uses gun/ammo/something sniffing dogs in the emplyee lots, which seems like it would be easily foiled by a similar method, though easier since it wouldn't require any inherently illegal materials to be used.

The ol' Hoppe's No. 9 spray bottle?

[Renegade]

The company does NEED probable cause, though. They can just demand that as a condition of your continued employment they get to search your vehicle. If you consent and have a firearm, and that violates company policy, then they can fire you.

If you have received a copy of the company policy, and it is written in compliance with PC 30.06, and the parking lot is posted as well, then you can be prosecuted for criminal trespass by a license holder, since you have received notice and the facility is posted (If the parking lot is not posted, you might maybe have an out, but I wouldn't bet my freedom & CHL on it).

Highly doubtful you could be prosecuted.

1) 30.06 only applies to folks carrying "on or about their person". If you are outside your locked vehicle, and you consent (give them the keys), or do not consent (they break-in, or it is unlocked), you are clearly not carrying "on or about their person", so 30.06 does not apply to you.

2) 30.06 only applies to folks carrying under CHL law. With the traveling presumption, as long as you and your gun meet those presumptions, you are not carrying under CHL law, but under traveling, so 30.06 would not apply then either. Just like a reserve officer with CHL could not be prosecuted. So even if you were sitting in your car you would not be carrying under 30.06.

On another note, I would love to see a company manual that complies with 30.06, would be pretty big. I imagine the best thing for companies to do is give you 30.06 oral notice on your hire day.

[mr surveyor]

what is the generally accepted legal defination of the phrase "on or about their person"?