ICE vs Work Site Privacy Rights

Immigration agents have intensified raids on construction sites, often without warrants, as the Trump administration continues its mass deportation policy. The question that arises from such action, is this: Do individuals have privacy rights while at work and/or on job sites. My answer is, it depends on each situation.

The federal government is defending those tactics in court as the Trump administration argues Fourth Amendment rights do not apply at work – at least on construction sites. A case in question involves two separate encounters between Leo Garcia Venegas (a U.S. citizen and construction worker) and immigration agents at Alabama construction sites last year. Both times, Venegas was temporarily detained while at work.

"I got arrested twice for being a Latino working in construction," Venegas said in a video produced by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that is representing him. In his complaint, Venegas argued that the federal government has a policy of entering worksites without judicial warrants. The government, on the other hand, claims Venegas had no "reasonable expectation of privacy" while working at sites owned by home builders, D.R. Horton and Lennar. They argue because Venegas worked temporarily on sites he didn't own, he had no constitutional protection against government entry, and had no power to exclude anybody from the property, even at his own workplace.

I can agree with the government’s argument, but only to a point. D.R. Horton and Lennar do own the construction sites. The government should have been forced to obtain a warrant for searching the properties… assuming the home builders insisted on one. Even if they didn’t, Venegas could still be in the right.

At question is the Open Fields Doctrine, a legal principle allowing law enforcement to enter some outdoor spaces without a warrant. When it comes to construction sites, however, it would be hard to define them as “open fields”. It’s common for a construction sites to post “NO TRESPASSING” signs and/or put up fencing to keep people out, as well as having expensive machinery on site. Any rational person understands that not only shouldn't you trespass, but that it can also be quite dangerous for you to do so. Few people would consider such sites to be “open fields”; nor should government.

It can also be argued that if the owner of the site gives workers “possession” of the site at any time, then it is under control of the workers for the duration of the job, and the worker can exclude others. In fact, it would be Venegas’s duty (via OSHA safety rules) to keep people off of these sites, giving him Fourth Amendment rights while there.

This is a classic example of how Trump is exercising deportations in an idiotic manner. Building prices and rents (both commercial and residential) are extremely costly in today’s economic atmosphere. Demand is outpacing supply. We need more homes and businesses built; not less. We don’t need to be eliminating these workers from the workforce. Prioritizing deportations of those contributing to in-demand industries, over other illegal immigrants, is a special kind of stupid.

Source used: Reason magazine