It’s not false in my example, but I could have been more clear. You added the “public” part to the dining room. I didn’t specify so that’s a fair reading, but I meant to elaborate that the cafeteria in my building is behind a secured access - employees and guests only. Its not open to the public. There is a publicly accessible lobby where there is a security guard and badged controlled access.
In the home example, unless the bedroom door is locked, I’d say the shared occupant could invite police to enter, but this goes into more nuanced 4th amendment jurisprudence.
It would then depend on how the law defines “public” vs “nonpublic” spaces (which the text of this particular law doesn’t do). I would suspect that if your ICE friend is there for lunch, and not to perform a warrant-less search of the premises, you would not run afoul of this law.
For those who think ICE is performing a useful social function, what exactly is the problem with requiring them to get a warrant? Are you afraid they won’t be able to get a warrant? Why?
I don’t think that’s a rational interpretation. If you invited someone into your office for a meeting, does your office cease being a “non-public area”? If that’s the case, then AB450 is unenforceable, because as soon as ICE gets invited somewhere, by virtue of that invitation it’s no longer a “non-public area” and therefore not a violation. Do you see how dumb that would be?
In my case, I don’t have a problem with an individual saying “get a warrant” to the police. In fact, I’d encourage it. I have a problem with the state saying “you’re not allowed to grant consent”.
ETA: and to be clear, it’s not even so much a problem, as I suspect it’ll get overturned by the courts. If it doesn’t, like I said earlier, I’ll eagerly implement similar laws in my state for the parts of the federal bureaucracy I dislike. That’s probably a very inefficient way to run a country, but I’ll play by the rules as they are, not as I wish them to be.
Well, we don’t want random people poking around in our personal information without a warrant. And as someone (you) made clear earlier in the thread, people won’t do the right thing unless we make them, so we wrote a law.
And that’s what this law does. Sets up a HIPAA like protection on employment records. That the others are protected by law, and employment records are not is not relevant, when the entire point is that we are talking about a law that protects employee data. I am pointing out that there is precedent that there are times when information is sensitive, and should not be shared without due process.
And if that reason is because ICE agents are coming by several times a week, asking to see those records, and saying that they will not stop until you turn them over?
And after they leave and you turn on the news, you hear nothing about a serial killer being arrested. In digging a bit more, you find that your employee was arrested because he committed a minor traffic infraction.
Ultimately, you find that your employee insulted the cop who pulled him over, and so the police lied to you, telling you that your employee had been arrested for murder, in order to get you to give them more information so that they can find dirt on him to charge him.
That’s why I would ask for a warrant. Not because I’d need a warrant to turn over info on a serial killer, but because I’d need a warrant to believe the police that the person they are investigating is a serial killer.
Once again, preventing people from being coerced.
If business owner C does not want to invite ICE into staff only areas, yet ICE does not tell him that cooperation is voluntary and insists that if he does not cooperate then ICE will escalate things and make things unpleasant for the business owner, I do not in any way find absurd to have a law that gives the business owner something to fall back on.
I would support that. Too many people don’t know their rights, and “accidently” consent to searches, or are bullied or pressured into consenting to searches.
It’s a slightly different scenario, as it is specifically your privacy that you are volunteering to give up, not other people’s.
I suppose a better law would instead be to say that law enforcement, ICE et al., may not even request cooperation from private individuals without a warrant. I would definitely support that.
Most places that I have worked have forbidden non-employees in staff only areas. Even if you work there, if you are not on the clock, you are not supposed to be in staff areas. When I was catering to offices, I almost always had to actually sign in and be escorted about by the office manager. There really aren’t all that many places where you can invite your friend into the office breakroom to have lunch.
Out of curiosity, do you have a similar problem with Doctors not allowed to grant consent to medical records?
What about ISPs, Search Engines, or Facebook. Do you think they should be allowed to just turn over all your personal Internet habits and histories without a warrant?
You keep saying “random people”. We’re not just talking about “random people”. You understand we’re talking about ICE agents whose duty it is to investigation violations of our immigration laws, right?
I’m a contractor, so I have had the opportunity to visit a lot of businesses. Many of them have a sign-in procedure and allow guests / visitors in, at least with an employee escort. It’s probably not terribly common, but wouldn’t be considered inappropriate to, for example, have one’s spouse join you for lunch, or have a friend join you for lunch, in many of those settings. And that wouldn’t turn the non-public area cafeteria into a public area of the business.
Without a warrant or the law behind them, they are really very little different from “random people”.
If the federal govt wants to make a law that says that ICE agent must be permitted to inspect any and all documents and spaces whenever they want, they can go ahead and do that. Same as they have a law that says that the you must turn certain info over to the IRS, even though they don’t need a warrant. If the govt says that cooperation with law enforcement is “voluntary” then it really isn’t, is it?