Attention Catherine Owen

Jun 19, 2020 11:59 PM

Instructions

 

No   directly quoted material may be used in this project paper.

Resources   should be summarized or paraphrased with appropriate in-text and Resource   page citations.

Project 2: Legal   Challenges Confronting Private Security Operations: Administrative Searches

Scenario:

You   accept a position as the Corporate Security Director for ACME Electronics, a   company that manufactures different devices for a variety of   well-known brands, including cell phones, cameras, camcorders, stereos,   computers, tablets, video games, and more.  At any given time, many of   these products are fully assembled and stored at the plant awaiting shipment   to the vendors.  Also stored at the plant are the expensive components   used to manufacture the devices.

During   the first week of your new employment, you learn that significant device and   component inventory shortages have occurred over the past year resulting in   substantial company losses.  You suspect widespread internal employee   theft and have begun considering the various physical, procedural, virtual,   and other security control options available to address the theft   issue.  One of the security controls you contemplate employing is an   administrative search procedure, which is often referred to as a package   control program.  From your discussions with colleagues in the security   profession, you know that some employers have instituted administrative,   non-coercive, care taking search programs that have very effectively   mitigated internal theft losses.  You believe that such a program would   achieve similar results for ACME Electronics if properly implemented at the   ACME facility.

You   meet with corporate attorneys to discuss the feasibility of initiating an   ACME Electronics administrative search program because you know these   programs are controversial and sometimes result in significant legal issues   with considerable potential for civil lawsuits filed against the company and   its security operatives.  After a brief introductory discussion with the   attorneys, the corporation’s Chief Counsel provides you with a case study   dealing with the implementation of a new package control system at Bellevue   Hospital Center in New York City and asks that you become completely familiar   with the legal issues presented in the court case; the legal positions the   plaintiff and the defendant advanced to the court; and the court’s ruling and   rationale, including the important features of the search procedure   instituted by the hospital.  The Chief Counsel also asks that before any   further corporate group discussions take place regarding the implementation   of an administrative search program at ACME Electronics, you evaluate how   this court decision might impact your facility’s security operations and how   the results of this court decision would be used in any administrative search   policy proposals you make to the corporate executives.

.

Writing Assignment: After reading and evaluating Judge   Edward Weinfeld’s opinion in Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC.,   479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), linked below, consider the case in its   entirety, particularly the court’s opinion, and respond to the following:

(1) Write a strong introduction, first stating the   purpose of the paper, then providing a succinct recitation of the significant   facts in this case.

(2) Describe the issues related to the search program   the court needed to resolve.

(3) Explain the positions that Chenkin and Bellevue   advanced to the court regarding Chenkin’s claim that the hospital’s package   control system was unconstitutional.

(4) Provide details of the court’s ruling and   rationale and describe the important features of the Bellevue search   procedure cited by the court in rejecting Chenkin’s claims.

Based on your understanding of the   Chenkin v. Bellevue Hospital court case, in addition to the independent   research you complete using at least two additional sources, respond to the   following in preparation for your follow-up discussions with the Chief   Counsel about the implementation of an administrative search program at the   ACME Electronics facility:

(5) As a practical matter, evaluate how this court   decision might impact security operations.  Be specific and   comprehensive.

(6) Explain how the results of this case would be used in   any policy proposals you make to the corporate           executives.

Court Case Link:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979686479FSupp207_1658/CHENKIN%20v.%20BELLEVUE%20HOSP.%20CTR.,%20N.%20Y.%20C.,%20ETC.#

Note: Other source material relating to different types of   workplace searches can be located in the online classroom.  Go to:   CONTENT>COURSE RESOURCES>LINKS TO PROJECT 2 RESOURCES.

Formatting Requirements:

Use the American Psychological Association (APA) style   manual in writing this paper.

Paper should begin with an appropriate introductory   statement about the topic and a reference page.

You may access the following UMGC website as a reference   for APA style requirements:

http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/gethelp-citing.cfm

Paper should be a minimum of 1,000 (minimum) to 1,500   (maximum) words

· · Double space

· · 12 pt. font

· · 1” margins

· · Use APA   citations for all sources

· · Include   reference page using APA format guidelines (not included in word count)

Additionally –

· · Create a   cover page for your assignment (not included in word count)

· · Include your   name

· · Course title   and number

· · Project title

· · Date of   submission

UMGC Effective Writing Center: You are highly encouraged to use   the services of the UMGC Effective Writing Center (EWC) for this   project. http://www.umgc.edu/current-students/learning-resources/writing-center/index.cfm

 

Hide Rubrics

Rubric Name: Project 2 Rubric (2172)

This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Criteria

Equivalent to an A

Equivalent to a B

Equivalent to a C

Equivalent to a D or F

Stated purpose of the paper and identification of significant facts in the court case Value: 10 points

10 points

Content of the paper

has a stated purpose and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the significant facts in the court case

Range  9.0 – 10.0

8.9 points

Content of the paper has a stated purpose and demonstrates a good understanding of the significant facts in the court case

Range 8.0 – 8.9

7.9 points

Content of the paper has a stated purpose and demonstrates a suitable understanding of the significant facts in the court case

Range 7.0 – 7.9

6.9 points

Content of the paper has a stated purpose and demonstrates limited or no understanding of the significant facts in the court case.

Range   D = 6.0 – 6.9   F = 0.0 – 5.9

/ 10

Description of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve Value: 10 points

10 points

Content of the paper

demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve

Range  9.0 – 10.0

8.9 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve

Range 8.0 – 8.9

7.9 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve

Range 7.0 – 7.9

6.9 points

Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the legal issues related to the search program the court had to resolve

Range   D = 6.0 – 6.9   F = 0.0 – 5.9

/ 10

Explanation of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional Value: 15 points

15 points

Content of the paper

demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional

Range  13.5.0 – 15.0

13.4 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional

Range 12.0 – 13.4

11.9 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional

Range 10.5 – 11.9

10.4 points

Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the legal positions advanced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s claim the package control system was unconstitutional

Range   D = 9.0 – 10.4   F = 0.0 – 89.9

/ 15

Description and details of the court’s decision and its rational for ruling in favor of the defendant Value 15 points

15 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant

Range: 13.5 – 15.0

13.4 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant

Range: 12.0 – 13.4

11.9 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant

Range: 10.5 – 11.9

10.4 points

Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the court’s decision and its rationale for ruling in favor of the defendant

Range: D = 9.0 – 10.4

F = 0 – 8.9

/ 15

Evaluation of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations Value: 15 points

15 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations

Points available: 13.5 – 15

13.4 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a good understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations

Range 12.0 – 13.4

11.9 points

Content of the paper demonstrates a suitable understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations

Range 10.5 -11.9

10.4 points

Content of the paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of the court’s decision and reasoning on practical security operations

Range   D = 9.0 – 10.4

F = 0.0 – 8.9

/ 15

Explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives Value: 15 points total)

15 points

Content of the paper provides a comprehensive explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives

Range  13.5 – 15.0

13.5 points

Content of the paper provides a good explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives

Range  12.0 – 13.4

11.9 points

Content of the paper provides a suitable explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives

Range   10.5 -11.9

10.4 points

Content of the paper provides limited or no explanation of how the results of this court case can be used in any policy proposals written for corporate executives

Range   D= 9.0 – 10.4

F= 0.0 – 8.9

/ 15

Grammar/Writing Mechanics, formatting, references, and APA citations Value : 10 Points

10 points

Paper is formatted exactly as required, all required citations and references are present and APA standards are followed in every respect.

Range  9.0 – 10.0

8.9 points

Paper is formatted as required with minor/ inconsequential deviations, resource requirements are met, citations and references are present and APA standards are followed.

Range 8.0 – 8.9

7.9 points

Paper is mostly formatted as required but missing some required elements/ sources or some APA errors are evident.

Range 7.0 – 7.9

6.9 points

Paper is missing major elements, lacks required sources or APA is not followed however a different citation method is used correctly.

Range   D = 6.0 – 6.9

F = 0.0 – 5.9

/ 10

Grammar / Writing Mechanics Value: 10 points

10 points

No or minor English and grammar usage errors.

Range  9.0 – 10.0

8.9 points

Only a  few minor/ inconsequential mistakes in English and grammar.

Range 8.0 – 8.9

7.9 points

While there are some mistakes in English and grammar, they still do not interfere with understanding the student’s response or comments

Range 7.0 – 7.9

6.9 points

Many mistakes evident in English/grammar usage.

Range   D = 6.0 – 7.9   F = 0.0 – 5.9

/ 10

Rubric Total ScoreTotal

/ 100

Overall Score

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *