495 F.2d 1329 (1st Cir. 1974), 73-1379, United States v. Blanchard

Docket Nº:73-1379, 73-1380.
Citation:495 F.2d 1329
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerald F. BLANCHARD, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. GUTHRO & McCABE TAVERN, INC., Defendant, Appellant.
Case Date:May 07, 1974
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1329

495 F.2d 1329 (1st Cir. 1974)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Gerald F. BLANCHARD, Defendant, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

GUTHRO & McCABE TAVERN, INC., Defendant, Appellant.

Nos. 73-1379, 73-1380.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 7, 1974

Heard April 4, 1974.

Page 1330

Alexander E. Finger, Boston, Mass., for appellants.

Ann T. Wallace, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom James N. Gabriel, U.S. Atty., John R. Tarrant, III, Special Atty., Boston, Mass., and Peter Shannon, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, and McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

McENTEE, Circuit Judge.

On this appeal, defendants challenge a conviction on one count of a four count information charging violations of 26 U.S.C. § 5301(c) (1970). 1 They assert numerous grounds for reversal which, after careful consideration, we find to be completely without merit. Consequently, we affirm the judgment below.

Initially, defendants contend that a search warrant obtained by agents of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,

Page 1331

Tobacco and Firearms to inspect the premises of defendant Guthro & McCabe, Inc., d/b/a Twelve O'Clock Tavern, was issued without sufficient facts to warrant a determination of probable cause. However, in pressing this contention, defendants misconceive the true nature of the warrant at issue. In seeking to inspect defendants' premises, the agents were not attempting to make what might be called a 'traditional' fourth amendment search. See, e.g., Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967). Rather, pursuant to existing statutory authority, see 26 U.S.C. §§ 5146(b), 7606(a) (1970), and related administrative regulations, the agents were simply seeking a warrant to enable them to complete a valid and permissible regulatory inspection. Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60 (1970); See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). While the fourth amendment's requirement of reasonableness clearly extends to the application for such inspection warrants, Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, 387 U.S. at 528-534, it is settled law that such warrants may issue despite the absence of probable cause to believe that a specific violation has occurred. Id. at 534. Rather, where 'reasonable legislative or administrative standards' have been satisfied, the limitations upon inspection searches imposed by the fourth amendment will be deemed to have been complied with. Id. at 538. In the instant case, the application for the warrant indicated that, upon personal examination of the agent, it appeared that the defendant tavern was serving liquor despite the absence of the required Retail Liquor Dealer's Special Tax Stamp. See 26 U.S.C. § 6806 (1970). Moreover, the application additionally asserted that no inspection of the defendants' premises had previously been made within the past twelve months. We think that in an industry so heavily and historically regulated as the liquor trade, see Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, supra, 397 U.S. at 75, 77, a warrant issuing upon either of these two operative facts would easily...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP