Also known as: warrant requirement · probable cause requirement · warrant and probable cause requirement · Fourth Amendment warrant requirement · warrant preference
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional command requiring that searches and seizures be authorized by a warrant issued upon probable cause and describing the place and items with particularity. Limited exceptions exist when special needs or administrative routines render the warrant process impracticable.
Wesley Wells was arrested for trespass and taken to the stationhouse. Officers followed standard booking procedures and opened his backpack, discovering illegal drugs inside a sealed envelope. The drugs are admissible because the inventory search of an arrestee's belongings is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
Warren Wu, owner of Wrightway Engineering, refused entry to an OSHA inspector who arrived without a warrant to check for safety violations. The inspector left and obtained an administrative warrant based on a neutral inspection schedule. The warrant satisfied the probable cause requirement even though it lacked individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.
Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to assure safe and healthful working conditions. Section 8(a) of the Act empowered agents of the Secretary of Labor to enter without delay any workplace within the Act's jurisdiction to inspect for safety hazards and regulatory violations, with no search warrant expressly required under the Act. On the morning of September 11, 1975, an OSHA inspector entered the customer service area of Barlow's, Inc., an electrical and plumbing installation business located in Pocatello, Idaho. Ferrol G. "Bill" Barlow, the president and general manager, was present. After presenting credentials the inspector stated that he wished to search the working areas of the business, explaining that Barlow's had been selected through the agency's routine process even though no employee complaint had been filed. Barlow refused entry to the nonpublic employee areas without a warrant, invoking rights under the Fourth Amendment. Three months later the Secretary petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Idaho for an order compelling Barlow to admit the inspector. The district court issued the requested order on December 30, 1975; it was presented to Barlow on January 5, 1976. Barlow again refused admission and filed his own action seeking injunctive relief against warrantless OSHA searches. A three-judge district court was convened. On December 30, 1976, the three-judge court ruled in Barlow's favor, entering an injunction against searches or inspections conducted pursuant to Section 8(a). The Secretary appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseWade Watson refused to allow city inspectors into his apartment to check for code violations without a warrant. The inspectors obtained an administrative warrant supported by a general area inspection plan rather than specific evidence of violations. The warrant met the probable cause standard applicable to administrative searches of residences.
Roland Camara, lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building in San Francisco, faced criminal charges under the city's Housing Code for refusing to allow municipal inspectors to enter his residence without a search warrant. On November 6, 1963, an inspector from the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered the building to conduct a routine annual inspection for possible code violations. The building manager told the inspector that Camara was using the rear of his leasehold as a personal residence, which the occupancy permit did not authorize. The inspector confronted Camara and demanded entry to inspect the premises, but Camara refused because the inspector lacked a warrant. The inspector returned on November 8 without a warrant, and Camara again denied access. A citation was then mailed ordering Camara to appear at the district attorney's office. When he failed to appear, two inspectors returned on November 22 and informed him that Section 503 of the Housing Code required him to permit entry at reasonable times upon presentation of proper credentials. Camara still refused without a warrant. A complaint was filed charging him with violating Section 507 by refusing to permit a lawful inspection. He was arrested on December 2 and released on bail. Camara's demurrer to the criminal complaint was denied in the municipal court. He then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in California Superior Court, alleging that the ordinance authorizing the warrantless inspection was unconstitutional on its face. The Superior Court denied the writ. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. Camara had properly raised and obtained consideration of the federal constitutional questions in the state courts. The inspection program operated under Section 86(3) of the San Francisco Municipal Code, which required apartment house operators to pay an annual license fee that partly defrayed the cost of periodic inspections. The Bureau of Housing Inspection conducted these inspections at least once a year and as often thereafter as deemed necessary. The permit of occupancy for the building was not issued until the license was obtained.
Willa Whitman, a train engineer employed by Walker Valley Produce, was required to submit to a drug test after a minor derailment under company policy. The test was conducted without individualized suspicion or a warrant. The special needs of the regulated rail industry justified the warrantless testing as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules for railroad safety. For many years, railroads have enforced Rule G prohibiting operating employees from possessing alcohol or being intoxicated while on duty. In July 1983, the Federal Railroad Administration expressed concern that these efforts were inadequate after identifying at least 21 significant train accidents from 1972 to 1983 involving alcohol or drug use as a probable cause or contributing factor. After soliciting comments and announcing its intention in June 1984, the FRA promulgated regulations in 1985. Subpart C mandates that railroads transport covered employees to medical facilities for blood and urine testing after major train accidents, impact accidents, or incidents involving a fatality to an on-duty employee. Subpart D authorizes railroads to require breath or urine tests after reportable accidents where a supervisor has reasonable suspicion or upon specified rule violations. The Railway Labor Executives' Association and member labor organizations sued in the Northern District of California seeking to enjoin the regulations. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Transportation and the FRA. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Wren Wallace was stopped after officers received a tip that stolen tools were in a blue duffel bag in her truck. Officers had probable cause to believe the tools were in the vehicle and searched the duffel along with other compartments without a warrant. The automobile exception permitted the search of the container and the rest of the truck.
On October 28, 1987, Officer Coleman of the Santa Ana, California, Police Department received a telephone call from a federal drug enforcement agent in Hawaii who had seized a package containing marijuana addressed to J. R. Daza at 805 West Stevens Avenue in Santa Ana and had arranged for a controlled delivery of the package to the Federal Express office there. Coleman received the package on October 29, verified its contents pursuant to a search warrant, and took it to the Federal Express office for pickup. At about 10:30 a.m. on October 30, a man identifying himself as Jamie Daza claimed the package at the office and drove it to the apartment on West Stevens. Daza later left the apartment and discarded the box and wrapping in a trash bin. Officers then stopped Richard St. George as he drove away from the apartment carrying a blue knapsack containing one and one-half pounds of marijuana. At approximately 12:30 p.m., respondent Charles Steven Acevedo arrived at the apartment, remained inside for about ten minutes, and emerged carrying a brown paper bag the size of one of the wrapped marijuana packages sent from Hawaii. Acevedo placed the bag in the trunk of his silver Honda and began to drive away. Officers in a marked police car stopped the vehicle, opened the trunk, opened the bag, and discovered marijuana inside. Acevedo was charged in California state court with possession of marijuana for sale. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the marijuana. He pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. The California Court of Appeal reversed the conviction. The California Supreme Court denied the State's petition for review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Wesley Wong, a public hospital employee, kept personal files in a locked desk drawer. His supervisor searched the drawer without a warrant after receiving complaints about misconduct. The search was reasonable because public employers may conduct work-related searches of employee offices without a warrant when justified by legitimate workplace needs.
Dr. Magno Ortega served as Chief of Professional Education at Napa State Hospital for seventeen years until his dismissal in September 1981. In July 1981, hospital officials including Executive Director Dr. Dennis O'Connor grew concerned over Ortega's acquisition of an Apple II computer for the residency program, possible sexual harassment of two employees, and disciplinary actions against a resident. On July 30, 1981, O'Connor placed Ortega on paid administrative leave pending investigation, allowing him two weeks of vacation instead at Ortega's request, and later extended the leave on August 14 until termination on September 22. An investigative team led by Hospital Administrator Richard Friday entered Ortega's office multiple times during the investigation. The team seized personal items including a Valentine's Day card, a photograph, and a book of poetry sent by a former resident, along with Medicaid billing records for one of Ortega's private patients. No formal inventory occurred; all papers were boxed and stored for Ortega's retrieval. The seized personal items were later used in a California State Personnel Board hearing to impeach the former resident's credibility. Ortega filed suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against O'Connor and other officials, alleging the office search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the search proper to secure state property. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that Ortega possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and that the search violated the Fourth Amendment, granting partial summary judgment on liability and remanding for damages. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Police may open containers found in an arrestee's belongings during a valid inventory search conducted pursuant to standard procedures. The purpose is to protect property and shield officers from claims of loss, not to investigate crime. Opening a sealed envelope during such an inventory is permissible.
Supporting sources
…cause to suspect that a nuisance exists in any house, cellar or enclosure” before he could demand entry without a warrant, a requirement obviously met in Frank because the inspector observed extreme structural decay and a pile of rodent feces on the appellant’s premises. Section 503 of the San Francisco Housing Code has no…
…the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher to obtain a
…laws or breaches of other statutory or regulatory standards. It therefore appears that unless some recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies, See v. Seattle would require a
…that “[a]gainst these privacy interests . . . must be balanced the realities of the workplace, which strongly suggest that a warrant requirement
Yes. Business owners enjoy Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless entries by regulatory inspectors. An administrative warrant based on a neutral inspection plan satisfies the probable cause requirement even without individualized suspicion.
Supporting sources
Administrative warrants for code enforcement require a showing that satisfies a flexible probable cause standard based on the overall inspection program rather than specific evidence of violations in a particular home.
Supporting sources
A public employer may search an employee's office without a warrant when the search is work-related and justified by legitimate employer interests such as investigating misconduct. The reasonableness of the search is evaluated under a balancing test rather than the traditional warrant requirement.
Yes. When officers have probable cause to believe contraband is in a vehicle, the automobile exception permits a warrantless search of the vehicle and any containers that might reasonably contain the object of the search.
Supporting sources