It's been made a criminal offense by the legislature, because it's a violation of rights. The legislature does not consider sport fights assault(battery), because that's not a violation of rights. It can be simply an employment contract. The key is whether, or not the demand is a rights violation, or legitimate employment matter. The OK legislature saw the vehicle owner's rights being violated as I do.
Dear spunkets,
I don't think I've said it is beyond the authority of the legislature to prevent corporations from enforcing a policy like this.
I merely have said that, absent laws preventing them from doing so, that companies are permitted to deny access to their property to folks in vehicles who refuse to submit to a vehicle search. Absent laws preventing them, companies may also make searches of these vehicles on company grounds a condition of employment.
I think the Oklahoma legislature did not think this was a violation of constitutional rights, but rather something that was wrong, period.
Not everything that is wrong is unconstitutional.
If the policy were unconstitutional, folks could have sued over the policy per se, and the Oklahoma legislature could have filed a friend of the court brief in support of their position.
But these folks didn't sue over the policy per se, but rather they sued that they weren't adequately informed of the policy.
If, indeed, the policy were unconstitutional, it wouldn't have required legislation, only judicial action.
sitetest