Thewriter of the first response takes a clear and perceptive position byarguing that he/she does not think the search was unjustified. Theperson clearly asserts that he/she does not think that Herb hasground to say the search was unjustified since “ordinarily a searchof an employee`s locker by a supervisor will be ‘justified at itsinception’ when there are sensible reason for suspecting that thesearch will turn up evidence that the worker is guilty ofwork-related wrongdoing.”
Onfurther illustrations, the author asserts that if a worker is workingfor a company and the company is evident that the worker is stealing,the company is allowed to search the worker’s locker. The authordevelops a precise position on the issue through his/her convincingarguments. These justifications provided by the author answer whyhe/she thinks the search was justified.
Onthe second response, the writer tries to base his/her argument on theFourth Amendment of the United States constitution. According to theauthor, Herb is entitled to his expectation of privacy that in thiscase is his locked locker. The writer attempts to develop a singlepoint: Herb can have the search invalidated because it wasunjustified.
Theauthor argues that the Mint will have to get a warrant even thoughthey can see what looks like Herb on the cameras stealing the medalsoff of the floor. The author’s idea is strictly locked on the rightof the citizens to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures.However, the author lacks persuasive and thoroughly developedillustrations with well supported and sound logical reasoning.