Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Vol. 4 No. 1

 

MOVING BEYOND A BRICK AND MORTAR UNDERSTANDING OF STATE ACTION: THE CASE FOR A MORE MAJESTIC STATE ACTION DOCTRINE TO PROTECT EMPLOYEE PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE

By: Ronald P. Angerer II

This article addresses the issues surrounding the expansion of the state action doctrine in private entities and its ultimate impact on the rights of all citizens.  While the author recognizes the reality that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to only apply to state actors, he argues, however, that the state action doctrine has been over-expanded and interpreted to allow private corporations to invade the privacy rights of their employees.  The author submits that the answer to promoting and preserving employee privacy, and consequently, our own privacy, should be revising the public function test or through the use of the entwinement test.

To support his position, the author argues (1) that current law is insufficient to protect employees; (2) that current law is having adverse effects on the rights of all citizens, especially employees; (3) that the justifications for a rigid state action requirement have no support in the modern world, especially the modern employment setting; and (4) that either Marsh v. Alabama, or Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, or both, warrant finding state action in corporations which are the “functional equivalent” of a government.  In a methodical fashion, the author begins by examining the problems currently facing employee privacy in the workplace, and then discusses using state action as a means of promoting and protecting employee privacy in the workplace.  While the author recognizes that the current state action doctrine may have been well suited for a brick-and-mortar society, he holds that the progression of society inevitably calls for the reexamination of the law.

WISCONSIN V. YODER: RESPECTING CHILDREN’S RIGHTS AND WHY YODER SHOULD BE OVERTURNED

By: David Gan-wing Cheng

This article discusses the Supreme Court case that held Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law violated the First Amendment Free Exercise clause.  In Yoder, Yoder and several other similarly situated respondents of the Old Order Amish and Conservative Amish Mennonite faith refused to send their children, ages fourteen and fifteen, to public high school.  As a result, Yoder was charged with violating Wisconsin’s compulsory attendance law.
Beginning with an overview of the Yoder case itself, the author then discusses how the Court overlooked the rights of the Amish children at issue, particularly their right to an open future, and decided the case solely on the rights of the parents.  Finally, the author discusses how Yoder is an anomaly within the framework of the Court’s free exercise jurisprudence and argues that the decision may soon be overturned on free exercise grounds alone, notwithstanding children’s rights.

A CAN OF RED BULL, A MISSING SCREW, AND AN ATLAS: SNIFFING OUT SUSPICIOUS REASONING FOR THE FURTHER DISSIPATION OF AMERICANS’ FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

By: Brendan P. Manning

This article discusses a New York Court of Appeals decision that went against Supreme Court precedent.  The case, People v. Devone, not only held a canine sniff of a car a search, but also upheld a detention and canine search based only on the officer’s “founded suspicion” that criminal activity was afoot.  This is a level of suspicion lower than reasonable suspicion, which has thus far been required for the performance of a canine sniff.
The author begins by laying out the legal history behind the use of canines in a search of smells emanating from cars and how the law is applied in North Carolina.  In the second part of the article, the author discusses possible ramifications of the New York court’s opinion in other jurisdictions.  Throughout the article, the author presents the history of canine sniff jurisprudence at both the Supreme Court and North Carolina court level.