Under the fourth Amendment, “it is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Cornell University Law School, 1992, U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment). While citizens may have an expectation to privacy, the issue may be that privacy may not always apply. In the case of Chenkin v. Bellevue, the New York based hospital management had published and posted a memorandum pertaining to its new package control inspection system. It was clearly placed throughout the four city block municipal complex with the intent of obstructing employee theft of hospital property.…show more content… It also provided the employees options that could be taken in the event they wished to avoid the security screening altogether. Paul Chenkin does not dispute his knowledge of the package control system and it is assumed that he was aware of the security measure for at least twelve weeks prior to his first incident with Bellevue Hospital security officers. So on 28 June, 1978, security officers randomly selected Chenkin, as he exited the hospital, to have his bag searched without probable cause, but in accordance with the hospital’s new policy. There was no reason or suspicion to believe that Chenkin’s bag contained contraband or stolen hospital property. This would be the first of two refusals before human resources would suspend him for five days, without pay, for insubordination. In order for there to be an extension of privacy to his personal effects, Chenkin would have to prove that a “reasonable” expectation of privacy for his bag is
