397 U.S. 72 (1970), 108, Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States

Docket Nº:No. 108
Citation:397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60
Party Name:Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States
Case Date:February 25, 1970
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 72

397 U.S. 72 (1970)

90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60

Colonnade Catering Corp.

v.

United States

No. 108

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 25, 1970

Argued January 15, 1970

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Congress, which has broad authority to fashion standards of reasonableness for searches and seizures respecting the liquor industry, has made it an offense under 26 U.S.C. § 7342 for a liquor licensee to refuse admission to federal inspector, a sanction that precludes forcible entries without a warrant. Pp. 72-77.

410 F.2d 197, reversed.

DOUGLAS, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, a licensee in New York authorized to serve alcoholic beverages and also the holder of a federal retail liquor dealer's occupational tax stamp, 26 U.S.C. § 5121(a), brought this suit to obtain the return of seized liquor and to suppress it as evidence. The District Court granted the relief. The Court of Appeals reversed. 410 F.2d 197. The case is here on a petition for writ of certiorari which we granted, 396 U.S. 814, to review the decision in light of Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, and See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541.

Petitioner runs a catering establishment. A federal agent, a member of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division

Page 73

of the Internal Revenue Service, was a guest at a party on petitioner's premises and noted a possible violation of the federal excise tax law. When federal agents later visited the place, another party was in progress. They noticed that liquor was being served. Without the manager's consent, they inspected the cellar. Then they asked the manager to open the locked liquor storeroom. He said that the only person authorized to open that room was one Rozzo, petitioner's president, who was not on the premises. Later Rozzo arrived, and refused to open the storeroom. He asked if the agents had a search warrant, and they answered that they did not need one. When Rozzo continued to refuse to unlock the room, an agent broke the lock and entered. Then they removed the bottles of liquor now in controversy which they apparently suspected of being refilled contrary to the command of 26 U.S.C. § 5301(c).

It is provided in 26 U.S.C. § 5146(b)1 and in 26 U.S.C. § 76062 that the Secretary of the Treasury or

Page 74

his delegate has broad authority to enter and inspect the premises of retail dealers in liquors.3 And in case of the refusal of a dealer to permit the inspection, it is provided in 26 U.S.C. § 7342:

Any owner of any building or place, or person having the agency or superintendence of the same, who refuses to admit any officer or employee of the Treasury Department acting under the authority of section 7606 (relating to entry of premises for examination of taxable articles) or refuses to permit him to examine such article or articles, shall, for every such refusal, forfeit $500.

The question is whether the imposition of a fine for refusal to permit entry -- with the attendant consequences that violation of inspection laws may have in this closely [90 S.Ct. 776] regulated industry -- is, under this statutory scheme, the exclusive sanction, absent a warrant to break and enter.

In Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 366-367, a case involving an inspection under a municipal code, we said:

[T]he inspector has no power to force entry, and did not attempt it. A fine is imposed for resistance, but officials are not authorized to break past the unwilling occupant.

Frank v. Maryland was overruled in Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, insofar as it permitted warrantless searches or inspections under municipal fire, health, and housing codes. The dictum that the provision for a fine on refusal to allow inspection made the use of force improper when there was no warrant was not disturbed, and the question is whether that dictum contains the controlling principle4 for this case.

Page 75

The Government, emphasizing that the Fourth Amendment bans only "unreasonable searches and seizures,"5 relies heavily on the long history of the regulation of the liquor industry during pre-Fourth Amendment days, first in England and later in the American Colonies. It is pointed out, for example, that, in 1660, the precursor of modern-day liquor legislation was enacted in England6 which allowed commissioners to enter, on demand, brewing houses at all times for inspection. Massachusetts had a similar law in 1692.7 And in 1791, the year in which the Fourth Amendment was ratified, Congress imposed an excise tax on imported distilled spirits and on liquor distilled here,8 under which law federal officers had broad powers to inspect distilling premises and the premises of the importer9 without a warrant. From these and later laws and regulations governing the liquor industry, it is argued that Congress has been most solicitous in protecting the revenue against various types of fraud, and, to that end, has repeatedly...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP