Burger was the proprietor of an auto salvage yard (which he was operating without a license). Police showed up to conduct an inspection of his business records and inventory, pursuant to a New York statute that allowed them to do random inspections on auto salvage yards. He didn't have any business records to show them, but he did have inventory, which was stolen. He was charged with possession of stolen property and with operating his junkyard without a license.
Burger moved to suppress the evidence because the police searched his yard without a warrant.
The US Supreme Court held that certain industries have a history of pervasive regulation by the government, to the extent that it diminishes their expectation of privacy. They key question in identifying these industries isn't so much the length of time that they have been so regulated (although that is an factor), it's the depth and pervasiveness of the government oversight. The industries mentioned in the decision include alcohol, firearms, mines, and junkyards.
In order for the pervasive regulation of an industry to make search warrants (and even probable cause) unnecessary, a few requirements have to be satisfied: First, there must be a substantial government interest in regulating the industry (in this case, it's the deterrence of auto theft by eliminating fences). Second, warrantless inspections have to be necessary to further the regulative scheme (in this case, the court noted that stolen cars move quickly through junkyards, and that frequent unnanounced inspections are necessary to deter this). Third, the regulatory scheme has to provide a constitutionally acceptable substitute for a warrant. This means there has to be some sort of regulation which defines the scope of the search and puts the business owner on notice that the business is subject to searches (in this case, the statute itself was held to be a constitutionally acceptable substitute).
The suppression order entered by a lower court was reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment