Air Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corporation 8212 690

• Decision Date: 20 May 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73,73
• Citation: 94 S.Ct. 2114,416 U.S. 861,40 L.Ed.2d 607
• Parties: AIR POLLUTION VARIANCE BOARD OF the State of COLORADO, Petitioner, v. WESTERN ALFALFA CORPORATION. —690
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

416 U.S. 861

94 S.Ct. 2114

40 L.Ed.2d 607

AIR POLLUTION VARIANCE BOARD OF the State of COLORADO, Petitioner,

v WESTERN ALFALFA CORPORATION.

No. 73—690.

Argued April 25, 1974.

Decided May 20, 1974.

Syllabus

A state health inspector entered respondent's outdoor premises in the daylight without its knowledge or consent and without a warrant, to make an opacity test of smoke being emitted from respondent's chimneys. In a hearing requested by respondent, the Colorado Air Pollution Variance Board on the basis of such test found the emissions violated the state act, denied respondent a variance, and entered a cease-and-desist order. The County District Court set aside the Board's decision, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the test constituted an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Held: The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, does not extend to sights seen in 'the open fields,' Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898, such as here where the inspector did not enter the respondent's plant or offices but had sighted what anyone who was near the plant could see in the sky. Pp. 864—865.

510 P.2d 907, reversed and remanded.

William E. Tucker, Denver, Colo., for petitioner.

Edmund W. Kitch, Chicago, Ill., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Donald D. Cawelti, Denver, Colo., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An inspector of a division of the Colorado Department of Health entered the outdoor premises of respondent without its knowledge or consent. It was daylight

[Amicus Curiae Information from pages 862-863 intentionally omitted] and the inspector entered the yard to make a Ringelmann test¹ of plumes of smoke being emitted from respondent's chimneys. Since that time Colorado has adopted a requirement for a search warrant for violations of air quality standards.² At the time of the instant inspection the state law required no warrant and none was sought. Indeed, the inspector entered no part of respondent's plant to make the inspection.

A federal Act under the administration of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets certain air quality standards, 81 Stat. 485, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq. The States have the primary responsibility to assure the maintenance of air quality standards, 42 U.S.C. § 1857c—2(a). Yet if the EPA has approved or promulgated 'an applicable implementation' plan, a State may not adopt or enforce a 'less stringent' one, 42 U.S.C. § 1857d—1. There is no conflict between a federal standard and state action, the sole question presented being whether Colorado has violated federal constitutional procedures in making the inspection in the manner described.

Respondent requested a hearing before Colorado's Air Pollution Variance Board. The Board held a hearing and found that respondent's emissions were in violation of the state Act.³ While the test challenged here was made on June 4, 1969, the Board after noting that Colorado's Health Department had been in conference with respondent 'in regard to its air pollution violations since September, 1967,' after approving the readings made by the field inspector on the day in question, and after holding that tests submitted in rebuttal by respondent were not acceptable, denied a variance and entered a cease-and-desist order. Respondent sought review in the District Court for Weld County which set aside the Board's decision. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, 510 P.2d 907; and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

The petition for certiorari which we granted, 414 U.S. 1156, 94 S.Ct. 913, 39 L.Ed.2d 108, raised three questions, presenting in differing postures questions under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081.

The main thrust of the opinion of the Court of Appeals is directed at the Fourth Amendment problem. It held that under Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930, and See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, the act of conducting the tests on the premises of respondent without either a warrant or the consent of anyone from respondent constituted an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. We adhere to Camara and See but we think they are not applicable here. The field inspector did not enter the plant or offices. He was not inspecting stacks.⁴ boilers, scrubbers flues, grates, or furnaces; nor was his inspection related to respondent's files or papers. He had sighted what anyone in the city who was near the plant could see in the sky—plumes of smoke. The Court in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898, speaking through Mr. Justice Holmes, refused to extend the Fourth Amendment to sights seen in 'the open fields.' The field inspector was on respondent's property but we are not advised that he was on premises from which the public was excluded. Under the Noise Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 1234, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. II), an inspector may enter a railroad right-of-way to determine whether noise standards are being violated. The invasion of privacy in either that case or the present one, if it can be said to exist, is abstract and theoretical. The EPA regulation for conducting an opacity test requires the inspecotr to stand at a distance equivalent to approximately two stack heights away but not more than a quarter of a mile from the base of the stack with the sun to his back from a vantage point perpendicular to the plume; and he must take at least 25 readings, recording the data at 15- to 30-second intervals. Depending upon the layout of the plant, the inspector may operate within or...