Lewis v. McMasters

Decision Date14 December 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-4059,80-4059
PartiesLouise E. LEWIS and Velma "Slim" Ivory, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Charles L. McMASTERS, Jim Meder, and Paul Kalpakoff, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Leonard C. Hoar, Jr., Fresno, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

James D. Weakley, Fresno, Cal., Carol Hunter, Sacramento, Cal., argued for defendants-appellees; Eldridge, Newman Aron & Liggett, Fresno, Cal., Darryl L. Doke, Sacramento, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Before KILKENNY and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and PANNER *, District Judge.

SNEED, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Ivory was the manager of an automobile dismantling yard owned and operated by appellant Lewis. In 1976, law enforcement officers conducted a warrantless inspection of Lewis' property pursuant to Cal.Veh.Code § 2805 (Deering). 1 During the course of this inspection, the officers seized a steel drum filled with old metal parts. The drum was taken to the County Industrial Farm, where it was opened and searched. This search produced partially burned title documents and a vehicle identification number belonging to a stolen automobile. Criminal charges against the appellants ensued. Ultimately, the appellants were acquitted because the seized evidence had been planted to incriminate them by persons unknown.

Following this acquittal, appellants filed a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the law enforcement officers for damages arising from the allegedly illegal search and seizure. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that section 2805 of the Vehicle Code constitutionally authorized the warrantless search and seizure. We reverse.

Section 2805 does not give law enforcement officers authority to conduct general searches of business premises. "California courts have upheld (the statute's) validity on the ground that, properly construed, the section applies to searches made, 'under reasonable circumstances, within constitutional limitations.' (People v. Burnett, supra, 107 Cal.App.3d 795, 800, 165 Cal.Rptr. 781; Jackson v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.3d 361, 367, 142 Cal.Rptr. 299.)" People v. Lopez, 116 Cal.App.3d 600, 606-07, 172 Cal.Rptr. 236, 239 (1981). We note as well that on at least one occasion a California court found that an asserted section 2805 search exceeded the scope of the statute. Jackson v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App.3d 361, 142 Cal.Rptr. 299.

A constrained interpretation of section 2805 is mandated by the United States Supreme Court cases that have recognized a limited exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for inspections of "pervasively regulated businesses." 2 See Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60 (1970); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972). See also, Marshall v. Barlow, 436 U.S. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978). All of these cases have recognized the importance of placing reasonable time, place and manner requirements on the inspections. See Note, Rationalizing Administrative Searches, 77 Mich.L.Rev. 1291, 1316 (1979). Indeed, in Colonnade, the Court, while it upheld the inspection statute involved, struck down the particular search because it exceeded the bounds of the authorizing statute.

We conclude that the seizure, removal, and subsequent search of the steel drum in this case exceeds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Pace
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 30, 1984
    ...416 So.2d 882 [Fla.App.] ) have found statutes somewhat more tightly drafted than the New York City Charter provision (see Lewis v. McMasters, 663 F.2d 954) to be constitutional. On the other hand, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has held its statute unconstitutional (State v. Galio, 92 N.M......
  • Bruce v. Beary, 06-15304.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • September 6, 2007
    ...has enforced a similar reasonableness requirement on an administrative inspection of an automobile salvage yard. In Lewis v. McMasters, 663 F.2d 954, 955 (9th Cir.1981), the Ninth Circuit observed that California courts had upheld an authorizing statute's validity on the ground that, proper......
  • People v. Leto, J-6
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1984
    ...v. Arcuri, 416 So2d 882 ) have found statutes somewhat more tightly drafted than the New York City Charter provision (see Lewis v. McMasters, 663 F2d 954 to be constitutional. On the other hand, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has held its statute unconstitutional (State v. Galio, 92 NM 266......
  • Gordon v. City of Moreno Valley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • August 31, 2009
    ...Fourth Amendment's standard of reasonableness." United States v. Bulacan, 156 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir.1998); see also Lewis v. McMasters, 663 F.2d 954, 955 (9th Cir.1981) (observing "a constrained interpretation of the provisions of the statutory scheme is mandated" on account of the "limite......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT