Conference 7.286::digital

    very similar to the case shown on the show COPS Saturday night,
    except of course, the person taken into custody was found to have
    contraband in his belongings. I wondered the same thing you are
    wondering ... I've been asked that very question by the RCMP when
    returning to Toronto. I said no, you may not search my bags, they
    contain company confidential materials. They let me go.(surprise!)
    
    Scooter

    What you tell DEC is that you were stopped as part of a drug
    investigation and as a result you missed your plane. DEC will pay the
    extra costs; today they are a "normal" hazard of doing business.
    
    DEC will not help you sue.

    I would expect DIGITAL to provide me legal assistance to sue for false
    imprisonment and defamation of character.  The hotel costs, etc. are
    incidental to the loss of reputation.
    
    Marge

    
    It seems to me that if the cops had a legal right to stop you, detain
    you, etc., that it would have been better for you and DEC to let
    them search your bags on the spot.  Better to say "I'm here on 
    business for DEC - I have nothing to hide" and get it over with.
    The decision to miss the flights and meetings were voluntary, albeit
    legally proper and in defense of principles.  We have to draw the
    line somewhere in deciding what avoidable travel costs are to be
    reimbursed.  I say you pay for the extra night, etc.
    
    Now, if you had no choice but to miss the plane, DEC should pay.
    And if the cops acted improperly, I say that the company has to
    back you 100% in whatever way it can.  But you would be expected
    to cooperate in normal and legal airport security procedures, and
    being stopped for questioning or searching, if legal and if no
    false arrest is made, is no defamation of character and no excuse
    to cost the company more on its travel budget.
    
    My opinions, not company policy.
    David
    
    

    Silly reply...
    
    Carry a non-disclosure agreement and have them sign it before opening
    your bags.

    I've talked with our local Personnel Dept. and this is their response:
    
    o  Identify yourself as a DIGITAL employee on company business
    
    o  It is DIGITAL's policy to cooperate fully with the police.
    
    
    She did not know whether DEC includes in the definition of cooperation
    that DEC employees on company business are required to allow police
    searches of personal belongings and suggested contacting the legal
    dept. for a clarification.  (I'm in the process of doing this.)
    
    BTW, I've changed the title of this topic to be a bit more descriptive.
    
    Paul
    
    

      Hopefully, my DEC Traveling Days are history. But, my DEC "Toolkit"
    bag was X-Rayed/Opened/Searched at the Atlanta Airport when departing
    for my return to Boston after working a week at the InterFace '85
    Trade Show in Atlanta. note: The DEC "Toolkit" bag was clearly marked
    with my DEC Business Card (Luggage tag) attached to the bag's handle.
    The Security Guards took my DEC "Toolkit" bag off the end of the
    X-Ray machine's Conveyor belt, asked me "what's in the bag", I told
    them "my Company's Toolkit", they then asked me for "Corporate ID"
    and "Personal ID", I produced the ID's, and then they asked me to
    "Please open the bag", I then complied. note: While this scenario
    was happening, I'd mentioned to them that the same bag/contents
    had already been X-Rayed when departing Boston and X-Rayed when
    arriving Atlanta five days prior. But, they didn't care that it
    had been X-Rayed twice before without anybody questioning that
    same bag's contents.
    
    
    						regards,
    							Bob
    
    

        There are significant differences between .7 and .0. 
        
        In .7 there is a specific reason to perform the search
        (searching carry-on luggage for weapons and explosives when
        the X-ray check doesn't demonstrate that the luggage is safe)
        and the situation is a standard situation that is used for
        every passenger on every flight.  No search warrant is required. 
        
        On the other hand, .0 describes an exceptional situation, a
        search for illegal drugs that is not normally done for each
        passenger.  A search warrant is required for the search, and
        search warrant is not supposed to be issued without probably
        cause. 
        
        If there is probably cause, them the police are correct to
        detain the suspect.  If there is no probably cause, then the
        police should be sued for violating the rights of the suspect.
        In either case, the police caused the delay by insisting on a
        search and taking the time to get the warrant for the search,
        so the suspect should not be penalized by DEC in any way for
        the delay. 
        
        However, I know of no reason that DEC would be obligated to
        support the suspect in a lawsuit against the police. 
        
        					B.J.

    Re .8:
                                      
    There are more specific differences.  A search warrant IS required to
    search, even when boarding an airplane.  But the airlines and airport
    do not have to permit you to board the plane unless you consent to
    being searched.  In other words, you can Just Say NO and leave; they
    cannot stop you.  There's potential for a lawsuit in the making;
    somebody could claim the search is causing them damages and/or loss of
    privacy and the search is due to government pressure rather than
    private action.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    So, the Constitutional Rights, as it turned out, are pretty expensive.
    
    The police did act within their job duties.  I have a tough time
    understanding what the big deal was about letting them check the
    baggage.  I mean, after all, the security people at the airport
    are going to be doing it too.  So what if a couple more people look
    at it?  Especially the police?  Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about your
    consitutional rights!   You did act within your rights!  We all
    have those rights.
    
    Another thing that bothers me is your first response, "Of course
    not.  Do I look stupid?"  What were you thinking?  Is it O.K. for
    airport security to search your luggage, but not the police?  Or,
    is it that you believe that no one has any right to search?  It
    seems to me that we lost all that the moment the X-ray machines
    moved into the airports.  We gave all that up so we could have safe
    travel, and now for a drug free country.  The question is, at what
    cost?
    
    

    Am I the only one who is more concerned with being hauled off in
    "cuffs" in a public place than the stupid contents of my luggage?
    
    

	Although this seems to be going the way of SOAPBOX, I'll say that
	unless they (the police) provide me with probably cause and/or
	a search warrant, they will have a lawsuit on their hands. If
	DEC wants to join in, fine.

	When they have the Xray machines and baggage searchers AT THE DOORS
	OF THE AIRPORT, then and only then will I consent to having my
	baggage searched without probably cause.

						mike

    I entered a long response to this that was lost with a notes error
    so I'll try again more briefly.
    
    I am an ex police officer that worked two years at Miami International
    Airport. Airport police are very active in the pursuit of terrorists
    and drug smugglers and are supported by the courts on this. They
    are also very intolerant (as are most officers) of street lawyers
    who "know their rights". The search and sezure laws are very complex,
    vary from state to state, and are constantly changing based on court
    decisions. Add this to complex federal laws that apply to airports
    and I defy most anyone to really "know their rights".
    
    My suggestion to people who have encounters with law enforcement
    has always been, cooperate. _BUT_ if you feel the officers are out
    of line, make that very clear. State "I don't feel you have the
    right to ask to search my belongings under these circumstances and
    therefore any search is under duress". Then give them the bags.
    After the situation is over and everyone is calm, contact your
    lawyer and discuss a possible suit. This will save both sides a
    great deal of hassle, you can make your flight, and you still have
    a lawsuit if you want it.
    
    Most people don't understand. Police officers don't have to
    explain their actions or probable cause to you (they generally get
    more cooperation if they do though), they just have to be prepared
    to explain them in court if you sue them or file criminal civil
    rights charges against them. To state it clearer, police officers
    can do whatever they want to you, including take away your liberty
    without explanation. They had just better insure they are on strong
    legal ground because if they are wrong you have them by the short
    hairs AFTER THE FACT.
    
    Personally, I would love to catch a bad cop doing something that
    violated my rights. All the time he was doing it I would be thinking
    (to myself) how I was going to hang the bas____ later. But I would
    be doing everything I could to minimize the situation so I could
    not be accused of contributing to the problem and therefore lose
    the case. Hope this helps.
    
    				Dick 
    

< Note 750.11 by SCARY::M_DAVIS "Coffee, please. Irregular." >
    
>    Am I the only one who is more concerned with being hauled off in
>    "cuffs" in a public place than the stupid contents of my luggage?

    I doubt they'd haul you off in cuffs unless you gave them good reason
    to.  In the episode of Cops which .0 didn't mention that he was
    describing, the guy that got handcuffs was huge and put up a BIG
    fight.
    							Larry

    
    I was faced with a sort of similar situation many years ago leaving
    a customer site late at night a British Bobby (policeman) on his
    rounds stopped me and asked to search my bag. 
    
    Now he may or may not have had the right to do so without probable
    cause (as it happened, this was in Liverpool, and back then he did
    have the right under a local bye-law, but that's a rathole).
    
    My reaction then was what it would be in the situation in .0: get
    the officer's badge number[s] and then allow a search in the interest
    of good will and cooperation. Then the next day call your lawyer
    and see if there is anything you can do (like suing them).
    
    /. Ian .\

re .15 etc:

Certainly .15 is one way to react. Although I would undoubtedly be more
emotionally involved if it actually happened to me, I think I would probably
just let the officer search my bag.

It's easy to forget that police have a very tough, unpleasant, and often
dangerous job, and that their ultimate objective is to protect us citizens
(or subjects in the UK!). Admitting that these noble aims are not always to
the forefront in the individual policeman's mind, I do feel we ought sometimes
to stop and think carefully whether we ought to help the police or hinder
them.

In this case the important factor to me is that only slight inconvenience is
caused. Who objects to undergoing a search at an airport? We should positively
welcome it. Yet some years ago, before it became "normal", many of us would
have felt thoroughly outraged.

--Tom

    To add some more information...the scenario I presented was taken
    from two scenes from the pseudo-news show COPS.  This show contained
    one hours of clips from a week of filming with the Brodard (sp?)
    County Sherrif's Dept. in Florida.  The police gave full cooperation
    with the camera crew and had full knowledge that they were being
    filmed.
    
    One of the clips in the Ft. Lauderadale Airport showed a person
    vocally objecting to the police procedure and being threatened with
    arrest if he didn't keep his voice down.
    
    The other clip showed a guy who seemed to be suprised by the
    approaching officers.  At first he said to go ahead and search the
    bags and then he changed his mind and said no.  There was some verbal
    arm twisting by the police and the guy finally said the one of the
    bags was not his.  One of the cops immediately began searching that
    bag and said she would stop if the guy admitted it was his bag.
    He did, she stopped searching and placed him in "custody", informing
    him that he could not leave the area.  They were in the process
    of cuffing him when he attempted to grab the bag and run.  He was
    tackled, cuffed, and brought into a side room where his bags were
    searched (this may actually have been done at the station and there
    was no indication of a search warrant).  A quantity of what looked
    like cocaine was found along with a stolen revolver.

    My scenario is based on what I believe my actions would be if I
    were approached by similiarly acting narcotics officers and what
    I believe their response would be based on how they acted in the
    above two clips.
    
    re: .4
    
    >It seems to me that if the cops had a legal right to stop you...
    >that it would have been better for you and DEC to let them search
    >your bags on the spot.
    
    It may be better for DECs finances and better for not wasting the
    cops time, but what about for the person involved?  Should that
    person forfeit a constitutional right for these reasons?
    
    >But you would be expected to cooperate in normal and legal airport
    >security procedures...
    
    Insistance upon full protection under the law does not imply
    non-cooperation.

    
    re: .8
    
    >... .0 describes an exceptional situation, a search for illegal
    >drugs that is not normally done for each passenger

    Exactly.  There is no probable cause involved at all and not all
    persons in the terminal were checked.
    
    >However, I know of no reason that DEC would be obligated to support
    >the suspect in a lawsuit against the police.
    
    But if DEC pays for the additional expenses and the search is illegal
    DEC is also an affected party here.

    re: .10
    
    The issue here is not whether drug searches are desirable etc. 
    The issue is how DEC will react when my insistance upon full protection
    of rights has a negative impact upon our company.
    
    re: .11
    
    No.  But that is an issue for another notesfile.
    
    re: .14
    
    His size is irrelevant.  He didn't struggle until they began to
    cuff him.
    
    re: .15
    
    >...get the officer's badge number[s] and then allow a search in
    >the interest of good will and cooperation.
    
    But if you voluntarily surrender your right to have a search warrant
    what grounds do you have for complaint?
    
    
    
    I am trying to avoid the philosophical and political issues involved
    here.  The questions I am tying to get answered is this:
    
    How will DEC react to my inconveniencing them by insisting on full
    protection of my rights as a citizen?  What is considered to be
    the "right thing" (for DEC) to do in this case?

    Think about this:  would DEC ever ask me to surrender my right to
    a fair trial?

    I really like this company and would ordinarily never intentionally
    harm it but I have stronger feelings concerning principals.
        
    Paul

    
    � But if you voluntarily surrender your right to have a search warrant
    � what grounds do you have for complaint?
      
    The one mentioned in .0: defamation of character I guess. Actually
    my lawyer told me that *in British law* you can't waive your rights
    as such: if you have a right not to be searched, and the police fail
    to tell you that, then even if you agree to the search it is still
    illegal. 
    
    You can also argue (and this might work in America too) that you
    agreed to the search under duress, in that you understood that if you 
    didn't you would be detained and in the scenario of .0 suffer 
    inconvenience and financial loss (missing your plane).
    
    /. Ian .\

Doesn't this sound like a CATCH-22?

They can't search your bags unless they have 
    1) A search warrent, or
    2) Your permission

If you give your permission, they search.
If you DON'T give permission, they GET a search warrent based on
    the fact they you DIDN'T give them permission, and they search.

There HAS to be something wrong with this.

/harv

    So, write and complain to the Civil Liberties Union.
    
    Yielding to their request DOES NOT make their search legal if it
    wasn't legal to start with.  Therefore, anything found, including
    a handgun, won't be admissible to a court, since there was NO probable
    cause for the search.  But, again, I'm thinking from a point of
    view the way I understand the laws are in Ma. and not Fla.  The
    fact that they are able to produce a warrant at all shows me that
    their request and search, which they did anyway, is apparently legal.
    Now, that does not mean that legal is right.
    

Re: .13

>    [Airport police]
>    are also very intolerant (as are most officers) of street lawyers
>    who "know their rights".

That's all the more reason to resist them.  Being arrested by jerks like that
would be a badge of honor.

				-- Bob

>    That's all the more reason to resist them.  Being arrested by jerks like that
>    would be a badge of honor.

    Resisting arrest is a crime in and of itself in most places. Which
    means, if resist officers making an arrest, you are guilty of resisting
    arrest even if the arrest itself is later found to be invalid. On
    the other hand you are right, being arrested by jerks may be a badge
    of honor but more important may give you financial security for life.
    
    					Dick

    Re .22:
    
    > Resisting arrest is a crime in and of itself in most places.
    
    Physically resisting arrest is a crime.  .21 was speaking of neither
    physical resist nor resisting arrest.  It is legal and desirable to
    resist somebody trying to infringe upon your rights.
    
    Police officers have no right to react any differently to a person who
    is trying to maintain their rights than to any other person.  The very
    idea that there should be a penalty for wanting to have rights is
    repugnant.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    If police ask to search me or my positions it is up to me to agree
    or not. It doesn't involve DEC. If DEC tells me to object and I get
    in trouble or if what DEC puts in my bags gets me in trouble then
    and only then does DEC have an obligation to help me out or join me
    in my suit.

    If I refuse on my own and get in trouble it's my fault even if I'm
    on DECs business. Again unless DEC sends me somewhere I'm not supposed
    to go or has me carry something I should not be carrying.

    			Alfred

    Re .24:
    
    > If I refuse on my own and get in trouble it's my fault . . .
    
    Let's rephrase that a bit:  If you refuse legally and get in trouble,
    it is the fault of the police.
    
    In any case, it's not Digital's fault, but Digital could be involved.
    If Digital sends you on a trip and some possessions of yours are lost
    (e.g., luggage), under what conditions will Digital reimburse you?
    (Assuming you cannot get full compensation from the responsible party,
    if any.)  It's not Digital's fault, but it's not your fault either, and
    the luggage wouldn't have been lost if Digital hadn't assigned you a
    task which put your luggage at risk.
    
    If you are performing a service for Digital, Digital should pay
    expenses, and that includes the costs of travel, even if they are not
    costs incurred all the time. 
     
    
    				-- edp

    I've submitted a request to the legal department for clarification.
    I'll post the response.
    
    Paul

    Re: .20
    
    >The fact that they are able to produce a warrant at all shows me that
    >their request and search, which they did anyway, is apparently legal.
    >Now, that does not mean that legal is right.
    

    Maybe yes, maybe no.  All a person must do to convince a judge to
    issue a search warrant is to provide "evidence" that convinces the
    judge that their is "probable cause".  If the requester lies or
    submits falsified evidence, then yes, a search warrant may be issued.
    But the requester is open to serious legal ramifications themselves.
    
    As was mentioned earlier by someone else, my understanding of "rights"
    when confronted by the police, is that it is better to cooperate, duly
    noting any differences to the arresting officer; and later if you were
    right and the officer wrong, then you can consider your legal options.
    
    

    First of all, everybody is getting all steamed up over an admittedly
    hypothetical case based on reactions to "real-life" situations --
    except the hypothetical case assumes innocence and the "real-life"
    case assumed guilt.  (He really had drugs.)  I think it's impossible
    to go anywhere with this.  Nobody knows the odds of being asked
    to submit to a police luggage search without some good reason --
    the drug smuggler WAS smuggling drugs -- they had REAL cause after
    the fact, so it makes sense that they had probable cause BEFORE
    the search.
    
    Also, exactly what "constitutional right" (citation please) do you
    feel would be violated in this case?
    
    As a citizen, I think we *earn* our "rights" (which, after all, we
    grant to each other as a society -- they aren't delivered by some
    Higher Being) by cooperating as a society member.  In this case,
    I (for one) want drugs and drug dealers and drug smugglers stopped.
    If that means I am targeted once in a while for a random spotcheck
    in a high drug traffic area, so be it.  *I* have nothing to hide,
    and I'm willing to forfeit that much privacy that once in order
    to contribute to the success of the project to stop drug smugglers.
    (I wouldn't permit a random drug raid on my home without a warrant,
    but in a drug traffic airport, why not?)  Since I would cooperate,
    I wouln't be handcuffed (to follow the scenario.)  The search would
    probably take minimal time so I wouldn't miss my plane, and DEC
    wouldn't have to be involved at all.  (If I was in jeopardy of missing
    my plane -- running late, maybe -- I'd tell the police that and
    see if they could forward my luggage to me on the next plane if
    necessary, or maybe they'd drop the search IF I was cooperative.)
    
    Being uncooperative just suggests that you DO have something to
    hide -- and maybe you would, eh!!??  In which case I doubt if DEC
    would have any sympathy!
    
    If there is REALLY a case of a police officer overstepping his/her
    legal boundaries and you are REALLY caused to forfeit rights or
    suffer loss, by all means, sue.  I've known of one bad cop -- he, however,
    was a rapist, not a power-abuser.  The others I've known (or known
    of) were honest people doing the best job they know how.  Sometimes
    making mistakes, like all of us.  But *I* wouldn't want their job
    for anything, and I believe they provide a very necessary service
    in our society as it stands, so I think the most sensible and
    appropriate response for any citizen is to cooperate.  Always.
    
    IMHO
    
    Sherry

Re: .28  Sherry
    
>    Also, exactly what "constitutional right" (citation please) do you
>    feel would be violated in this case?

4th Amendment:

    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.

				-- Bob

>< Note 750.29 by HANNAH::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger" >
>Re: .28  Sherry
>>    Also, exactly what "constitutional right" (citation please) do you
>>    feel would be violated in this case?

>4th Amendment:
>    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>    and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not ...

    Oh, sure, Bob, go hide behind the Constitution !  .. criminals always
    say "I know my rights!", and try to get off on little technicalities.
    
>< Note 750.28 by WECARE::BAILEY "Corporate Sleuth" >
>    As a citizen, I think we *earn* our "rights" (which, after all, we
>    grant to each other as a society -- they aren't delivered by some
>    Higher Being) by cooperating as a society member.  

    Decent citizens, due to their complete and utter socialization, 
    don't NEED to know their rights.
    
    karl (do I have to put in the winky face here, or did you get it?)

>    the drug smuggler WAS smuggling drugs -- they had REAL cause after
>    the fact, so it makes sense that they had probable cause BEFORE
>    the search.

Sorry, the end does not justify the means.
    
>    As a citizen, I think we *earn* our "rights" (which, after all, we
>    grant to each other as a society -- they aren't delivered by some
>    Higher Being) by cooperating as a society member.

The people give rights to the government, not the other way around.

>    If that means I am targeted once in a while for a random spotcheck
>    in a high drug traffic area, so be it.  

So who gets to define high drug traffic areas?  Want to be stopped all the
time in Boston?  I don't.

>*I* have nothing to hide, and I'm willing to forfeit that much privacy that 
>once in order to contribute to the success of the project to stop drug 
>smugglers.

It won't stop.  It may be curtailed a bit, but it will be around forever.
It already has a few thousands of years under its belt.

>I wouln't be handcuffed (to follow the scenario.)  The search would
>    probably take minimal time so I wouldn't miss my plane, and DEC
>    wouldn't have to be involved at all.  

This presumes the police will give you an adequate amount of time before
the flight leaves.  Then the basic question still remains: what is the
cost to DEC/you for missing the flight?

>(If I was in jeopardy of missing
>    my plane -- running late, maybe -- I'd tell the police that and
>    see if they could forward my luggage to me on the next plane if
>    necessary, or maybe they'd drop the search IF I was cooperative.)

Well, you see... the reason they are searching your luggage is that they
presume you are guilty of carrying drugs.  They certainly will NOT let
you go on your way and leave the bags.  They want YOU as well as any drugs
they might find.
    
>    Being uncooperative just suggests that you DO have something to
>    hide -- and maybe you would, eh!!??  In which case I doubt if DEC
>    would have any sympathy!

Only if you take the police mentality about such things.  Why would you
require a search warrant for your house?  You have nothing to hide.  Why
would DEC have or have not sympathy?  If the person is standing up for
their rights, so be it.  DEC (and the employee) has to live with that.
The problem is not with employee, but rather getting the police to HAVE
probable cause before starting search.  The number of searchs carried on
might then be reduced, thereby decreasing the chances of this whole scenario
happening.
    
>    legal boundaries and you are REALLY caused to forfeit rights or
>    suffer loss, by all means, sue.  

That is the avenue for the US citizen to take.  That same citizen is a 
DEC employee.  The issue in this note is how is the scenario likely to
affect the employer/employee relationship.

>    in our society as it stands, so I think the most sensible and
>    appropriate response for any citizen is to cooperate.  Always.

So, they DON't need a search warrant to enter your home ? :-)  ^

-Joe

    Just to finish dragging this note down the Nth rathole...
    
    re: .28
    
>    I've known of one bad cop -- he, however, was a rapist, not a
>    power-abuser. 
    
    Rape is about as abusive of power as anyhting can possibly be.
    
    -joet

    Re .28:
    
    > Being uncooperative just suggests that you DO have something to
    > hide -- and maybe you would, eh!!??
    
    That's not true.  Many people don't want to be bothered.  They don't
    want their privacy invaded.  They don't want the government to know
    about their private lives.  They don't want the government to control
    their lives. 
    
    Maybe you don't have these feelings.  But this is America, and you've
    got to accept that people are different from you, and you must be
    tolerant of their way of life.  That means that you and the government
    should not be forcing them to obey when they aren't doing anything to
    harm you.  If they want their privacy, you and the government should
    let them have it. 
    
    There are good reasons for a person not to let the government see into
    their private life.  Maybe one's luggage contains confidential business
    plans.  Perhaps there's a list of stock tips which would be compromised
    if a police officer saw them and started a rumor about them.  One might
    be embarrassed by the clothing one had purchased for one's spouse.  Or
    perhaps one's luggage contains a copy of "Abuse of Police Power -- Case
    Studies" -- the police would be real sure to let you go merrily on your
    way after they saw that, wouldn't they?
    
    For many people, privacy is valuable in itself.  You just do not want
    outsiders examining your private life.  Letting the government search
    whomever and whatever it wants gives the government more power than it
    needs, and that power will be abused.
    
    Do you think the authors of the Consitution wrote the fourth amendment
    for fun?  They had good reasons for limiting the power of the
    government to search -- it is DANGEROUS for the government to search
    people without good cause.  The authors of the Constitution had nothing
    to hide, but they didn't want to be searched.
    
    Maybe you don't want that right for yourself, but you have to let those
    who do want it have it.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re: .28
    
    The Founding Fathers of the United States did in fact believe
    that our rights come from a "Higher power."  I may not get the words
    exactly right, but the Declaration of Independence says:
    
        "We hold these truths to be self-evident:  That men are
    endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;
    That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
    
    I know, it's not fair to quote the Declaration of Independence
    or the Constitution, right?
    
    

I am new to this conference, but I would like to toss my $.02 in.
One of my favorite statements about individual rights and freedom comes
from Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up a little liberty in exchange for a little safety
shall have neither."

  
Jim

    Your Moderators have recived a complain that this note has descended
    into a debate more appropriate to PEAR::SOAPBOX than this conference.
    
    I tend to agree. This topic has been write-locked.
    
    If you wish to dispute this, please use vaxmail to share your opinions
    by use of the  SEND/MEMBERS command from the Notes> prompt.
    
    Andy Leslie
    Co_moderator.

The following is my summary of the page-and-a-half response I received from 
Legal.  At the request of the responding lawyer, I have omitted his name.


SUMMARY:

	There is no corporate policy to cooperate *fully* with law enforcement
	agencies.  In fact, government inquiries are to be coordinated with
	the Law Department due to the fact that the government's interests and
	Digital's interests do not necessarily coincide.  Digital's policy
	is to cooperate *reasonably* with law enforcement agencies.

	This reasonable cooperation includes the appropriate and proper
	exercise of legal rights on behalf of the company as well as on the
	behalf of the employees.  

	Regarding detainment and the resulting performance failure of the 
	employee, as long as nothing illegal was found, the employee should 
	expect support from both Personnel and the Law Department in the event 
	of any disciplinary efforts resulting from the employee's proper 
	exercise of legal rights.  The employee is expected, however, to make
	all efforts to minimize the business impact upon Digital.

	As to the additional costs incurred in the process of exercising
	legal rights (hotel, etc.), determination of who is responsible
	should fall within the discretion of the employee's manager.  However,
	DIGITAL has no strict obligation to reimburse the employee under
	the circumstances described and will not support or participate in
	any litigation on your behalf.

	DIGITAL does not expect any individual to compromise his legal	
	rights on behalf of the company.

END_SUMMARY


I must say that this response from legal is much more reassuring that the
responses I received from local personnel and management.
	

Paul	

> I must say that this response from legal is much more reassuring that the
> responses I received from local personnel and management.
    
    I would say that the response from legal is much more reassuring
    than the responses we have seen from "I am not a laywer, but play
    one in various conferences" type noters and moderators.

- Vikas

>The following is my summary of the page-and-a-half response I received from 
>Legal.  At the request of the responding lawyer, I have omitted his name.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        That sure gives his response a lot of weight!

        	Mike

    re: .42
    
    His stated reason for not wanting his name in the notes file was
    to prevent an avalanche of messages from all over the network.
    
    I didn't get the impression from his message that he would in any
    way back down from his response if there were a real issue at stake.
    
    In fairness, his response did not seem to be a blow off in any way.
    
    Paul

    This topic was temporarily re-opened for the purposes of entering a
    legal opinion, as promised  previously.
    
    It is now closed again.
    
    Andy