Craib v. Bulmash
261 Cal. Rptr. 686, 777 P.2d 1120, 49 Cal. 3d 475 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative subpoena for records an employer is statutorily required to maintain does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it is reasonably relevant to an authorized regulatory purpose, nor does it violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination under the 'required records' doctrine.
Facts:
- Jay S. Bulmash, acting as a trustee for his sister Serena Gluck, employed attendants to provide her with care.
- California law, specifically Labor Code § 1174, requires every employer in the state to maintain records showing employee names, addresses, hours worked, and wages paid.
- An applicable Industrial Welfare Commission order required these records to be kept for a minimum of three years.
- In February 1986, Deputy Labor Commissioner Donald C. Craib issued an administrative subpoena duces tecum to Bulmash.
- The subpoena directed Bulmash to produce time and wage records, as well as names and addresses, for all persons employed by the trust over the preceding three-year period.
- The Commissioner's declaration stated the records were needed to investigate potential unpaid overtime wages based on a complaint from a former employee.
- Bulmash failed to appear at the designated time and place or to produce the requested records.
Procedural Posture:
- The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (Division) issued a subpoena duces tecum to Jay S. Bulmash.
- After Bulmash failed to comply, the Division filed a petition in the superior court (trial court) to enforce the subpoena.
- The superior court granted the petition and ordered Bulmash to produce the records.
- Bulmash, as appellant, appealed the order to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal, siding with Bulmash, reversed the superior court's order, holding that enforcement would violate his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
- The Division, as petitioner, sought review of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court order enforcing an administrative agency's subpoena for statutorily required employment records violate an individual employer’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures if not supported by probable cause, or their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if the records could reveal criminal liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Eagleson, J.
No. A court order enforcing an administrative subpoena for statutorily required records does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments under these circumstances. For Fourth Amendment purposes, an administrative subpoena does not require probable cause; it need only be for a lawfully authorized purpose, seek relevant information, and describe the documents with reasonable specificity, as established in Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling. This standard applies to individual employers, not just corporations, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in records that a lawful regulatory scheme requires to be kept and made available for agency inspection. Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the 'required records doctrine' established in Shapiro v. United States provides that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to records that are statutorily required to be maintained. This doctrine applies here because the record-keeping requirement is part of an 'essentially non-criminal and regulatory area of inquiry,' is not directed at a 'selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities,' and involves information of a kind customarily kept in the ordinary course of business.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mosk, J.
No as to the Fourth Amendment, but yes as to the Fifth Amendment under the California Constitution. The subpoena did not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, compelling Bulmash to produce potentially incriminating records without a grant of use immunity violates the broader protections of the California Constitution's privilege against self-incrimination. The majority erred by importing the questionable federal 'required-records' exception into state constitutional law instead of following California's tradition of resolving such conflicts by providing use immunity, which would protect the individual's rights while still allowing the agency to conduct its regulatory enforcement.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kaufman, J.
No as to the Fourth Amendment, but yes as to the Fifth Amendment. While there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in required records under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment claim has merit. The 'required records doctrine' from Shapiro v. United States is unsound, result-oriented, and should not be adopted under the California Constitution. Compelling an individual, who is already suspected of a misdemeanor, to produce records that could prove the crime places him in the 'cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.' The proper balance is to enforce the subpoena for regulatory purposes but grant the individual use immunity, preventing the state from using the compelled records in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the 'required records' doctrine as an exception to both Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections in California in the context of administrative subpoenas. It clarifies that the less stringent 'reasonableness' standard for subpoenas, rather than the criminal 'probable cause' standard, applies to individuals and sole proprietors, not just corporations. This significantly strengthens the investigatory power of state regulatory agencies, allowing them to compel the production of statutorily mandated records without having to meet the high bar for a criminal warrant or overcome self-incrimination claims, thereby facilitating enforcement of labor, environmental, and other public welfare laws.
