See v. City of Seattle, s. 92

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation387 U.S. 541,87 S.Ct. 1741,18 L.Ed.2d 930
Docket NumberNos. 92,180,s. 92
PartiesNorman SEE, Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE
Decision Date05 June 1967

Norman Dorsen, New York City, for appellant.

A. L. Newbould, Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for refusing to permit a representative of the City of Seattle Fire Department to enter and inspect appellant's locked commercial warehouse without a warrant and without probable cause to believe that a violation of any municipal ordinance existed therein. The inspection was conducted as part of a routine, periodic city-wide canvass to obtain compliance with Seattle's Fire Code. City of Seattle Ordinance No. 87870, c. 8.01. After he refused the inspector access, appellant was arrested and charged with violating § 8.01.050 of the Code:

'INSPECTION OF BUILDING AND PREMISES. It shall be the duty of the Fire Chief to inspect and he may enter all buildings and premises, except the interiors of dwellings, as often as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining and causing to be corrected any conditions liable to cause fire, or any violations of the provisions of this Title, and of any other ordinance concerning fire hazards.'

Appellant was convicted and given a suspended fine of $1001 despite his claim that § 8.01.050, if interpreted to authorize this warrantless inspection of his warehouse, would violate his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. We noted probable jurisic tion and set this case for argument with Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930. 385 U.S. 808, 87 S.Ct. 31, 17 L.Ed.2d 50. We find the principles enunciated in the Camara opinion applicable here and therefore we reverse.

In Camara, we held that the Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused to permit a warrantless code-enforcement inspection of his personal residence. The only question which this case presents is whether Camara applies to similar inspections of commercial structures which are not used as private residences. The Supreme Court of Washington, in affirming appellant's conviction, suggested that this Court 'has applied different standards of reasonableness to searches of dwellings than to places of business', citing Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 90 L.Ed. 1453. The Washington court held, and appellee here argues, that § 8.01.050, which excludes 'the interiors of dwellings,'2 establishes a reasonable scheme for the warrantless inspection of commercial premises pursuant to the Seattle Fire Code.

In Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374; Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654; and Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319, this Court refused to uphold otherwise unreasonable criminal investigative searches merely because commercial rather than residential premises were the object of the police intrusions. Likewise, we see no justification for so relaxing Fourth Amendment safeguards where the official inspection is intended to aid enforcement of laws prescribing minimum physical standards for commercial premises. As we explained in Camara, a search of private houses in presumptively unreasonable if conducted without a warrant. The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property. The businessman, too, has that right placed in jeopardy if the decision to enter and inspect for violation of regulatory laws can be made and enforced by the inspector in the field without official authority evidenced by warrant.

As governmental regulation of business enterprise has mushroomed in recent years, the need for effective investigative techniques to achieve the aims of such regulation has been the subject of substantial comment and legislation. 3 Official entry upon commercial property is a technique commonly adopted by administrative agencies at all levels of government to enforce a variety of regulatory laws; thus, entry may permit inspection of the structure in which a business is housed, as in this case, or inspection of business products, or a perusal of financial books and records. This Court has not had occasion to consider the Fourth Amendment's relation to this broad range of investigations. 4 However, we have dealt with the Fourth Amendment issues raised by another comon investigative technique, the administrative subpoena of corporate books and records. We find strong support in these subpoena cases for our conclusion that warrants are a necessary and a tolerable limitation on the right to enter upon and inspect commercial premises.

It is now settled that, when an administrative agency subpoenas corporate books or records, the Fourth Amendment requires that the subpoena be sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome.5 The agency has the right to conduct all reasonable inspections of such documents which are contemplated by statute, but it must delimit the confines of a search by designating the needed documents in a formal subpoena. In addition, while the demand to inspect may be issued by the agency, in the form of an administrative subpoena, it may not be made and en- forced by the inspector in the field, and the subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of the reasonableness of the demand prior to suffering penalties for refusing to comply.

It is these rather minimal limitations on administrative action which we think are constitutionally required in the case of investigative entry upon commercial establishments. The agency's particular demand for access will of course be measured, in terms of probable cause to issue a warrant, against a flexible standard of reasonableness that takes into account the public need for effective enforcement of the particular regulation involved. But the decision to enter and inspect will not be the product of the unreviewed discretion of the enforcement officer in the field.6 Given the analogous investigative functions performed by the administrative subpoena and the demand for entry, we find untenable the proposition that the subpoena, which has been termed a 'constructive' search, Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 202, 66 S.Ct. 494, 502, 90 L.Ed. 614, 166 A.L.R. 531, is subject to Fourth Amendment limitations which do not apply to actual searches and inspections of commercial premises.

We therefore conclude that administrative entry, without consent, upon the portions of commercial premise w hich are not open to the public may only be compelled through prosecution or physical force within the framework of a warrant procedure.7 We do not in any way imply that business premises may not reasonably be inspected in many more situations than private homes, nor do we question such accepted regulatory techniques as licensing programs which require inspections prior to operating a business or marketing a product. Any constitutional challenge to such programs can only be resolved, as many have been in the past, on a case-by-case basis under the general Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness. We hold only that the basic component of a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment—that it not be enforced without a suitable warrant procedure—is applicable in this context, as in others, to business as well as to residential premises. Therefore, appellant may not be prosecuted for exercising his constitutional right to insist that the fire inspector obtain a warrant authorizing entry upon appellant's locked warehouse.

Mr. Justice CLARK, with whom Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART join, dissenting.

Eight years ago my Brother Frankfurter wisely wrote in Frank v. State of Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 79 S.Ct. 804, 3 L.Ed.2d 877 (1959):

'Time and experience have forcefully taught that the power to inspect dwelling places, either as a matter of systematic area-by-area search or, as here, to treat a specific problem, is of indispensable importance to the maintenance of community health; a power that would be greatly hobbled by the blanket requirement of the safeguards necessary for a search of evidence of criminal acts. The need for pre- ventive action is great, and city after city has seen this need and granted the power of inspection to its health officials; and these inspections are apparently welcomed by all but an insignificant few.' At 372, 79 S.Ct. at 811.

Today the Court renders this municipal experience, which dates back to Colonial days, for naught by overruling Frank v. State of Maryland and by striking down hundreds of city ordinances throughout the country and jeopardizing thereby the health, welfare, and safety of literally millions of people.

But this is not all. It prostitutes the command of the Fourth Amendment that 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause' and sets up in the health and safety codes area inspection a newfangled 'warrant' system that is entirely foreign to Fourth Amendment standards. It is regrettable that the Court wipes out such a long and widely accepted practice and creates in its place such enormous confusion in all of our towns and metropolitan cities in one fell swoop. I dissent.


I shall not treat in any detail the constitutional issue involved. For me it was settled in Frank v. State of Maryland, supra. I would adhere to that decision and the reasoning therein of my late Brother Frankfurter. Time has not shown any need for change. Indeed the opposite is true, as I shall show later. As I read it, the Fourth Amendment guarantee of individual privacy is, by its language, specifically qualified. It prohibits only those searches that are 'unreasonable.' The majority seem to recognize tis for t...

To continue reading

Request your trial
930 cases
  • In re Benny
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 14, 1983
    ...of criminal activity. See Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967); See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967). See also Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 98 S.Ct. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978). Moreover, where the materials ......
  • Soli v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 5, 1980
    ...premises may . . . reasonably be (searched) in many more situations than private homes, . . ." (See v. City of Seattle (1967) 387 U.S. 541, 545-546, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 1741, 18 L.Ed.2d 943.) Near the bottom of this descending scale will be found places such as "Open "(T)he special protection ac......
  • Wheeler v. Goodman, Civ. A. No. 2431
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • May 11, 1971
    ...operating businesses, like persons occupying homes, can claim this much Fourth Amendment protection. See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967); United States v. Raidl, 250 F.Supp. 278 (N.D. Ohio, The Sparrow Home Katherine Sparrow was a proprietor of the Gen......
  • United States v. Volpe, Crim. No. H-76-37-H-76-41 and H-75-123.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 15, 1977 protection under the Fourth Amendment, are not entitled to the same protection which is afforded a home. See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967). Also, premises which are vacant at the time searched are, in respects here material, less protected constit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination
    • March 30, 2016
    ...States , 356 F.2d 310, 316 (1st Cir. 1966), Form 3-D Roviaro v. United States , 353 U.S. 53 (1957), §1:02 —S— See v. City of Seattle , 387 U.S. 541 (1967), Form 3-D Shedelbower v. Estelle , 885 F.2d 570 (1989), Form 3-C Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 (1920), Form 3-......
  • Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco , 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (Fourth Amendment applies to administrative searches); See v. Seattle , 387 U.S. 541 (1967). When a valid public interest justiies an administrative search and the person in charge of the premises refuses consent to enter, a w......
  • Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Fourth amendment searches and seizures
    • April 1, 2022
    ...Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco , 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (Fourth Amendment applies to administrative searches); See v. Seattle , 387 U.S. 541 (1967). When a valid public interest justifies an administrative search and the person in charge of the premises refuses consent to enter, a ......
  • Fourth Amendment Primer
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • August 4, 2016
    ..., 342 U.S. 48 (1951). • Fire damaged home. Michigan v. Clifford , 464 US 287 (1984). • Commercial premises. See v. City of Seattle , 387 U.S. 541 (1967). • Ofices shared with other employees. Macusi v. DeForte , 392 U.S. 364 (1968). • Non-public areas of a workplace. O’Conner v. Ortega , 48......
  • 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