Donovan v. Dewey

Supreme Court of the United States
452 U.S. 594, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 58, 101 S. Ct. 2534 (1981)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Warrantless administrative inspections of commercial property are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment if the government has a substantial interest in regulating the industry, warrantless inspections are necessary to further the regulatory scheme, and the statute establishes a predictable inspection program that serves as an adequate substitute for a warrant.

Facts:

Congress enacted the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which requires federal inspectors to inspect underground mines at least four times a year and surface mines twice a year to ensure compliance with health and safety standards.
The Act explicitly grants inspectors the right to enter any mine without advance notice.
Waukesha Lime and Stone Co. operated a limestone quarry, which is classified as a surface mine under the Act.
In July 1978, a federal mine inspector entered the Waukesha quarry to determine if violations discovered during a previous inspection had been corrected.
After the inspector had been on the site for approximately one hour, Douglas Dewey, the president of Waukesha, ordered the inspector to stop.
Dewey refused to allow the inspection to continue unless the inspector obtained a search warrant.
The inspector issued a citation to Waukesha for terminating the inspection.

Procedural Posture:

The Secretary of Labor filed a civil action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin seeking to enjoin Waukesha Lime and Stone Co. from refusing warrantless searches.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees (Waukesha/Dewey), ruling that the warrantless search provision of the Act violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Secretary of Labor appealed the District Court's decision directly to the United States Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1252.

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 Section 103(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which authorizes warrantless inspections of stone quarries, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Marshall

No, the warrantless search provision is constitutional because the Act establishes a reasonable regulatory scheme that acts as a valid substitute for a warrant. The Court established that while commercial property owners have Fourth Amendment protections, these are lower than privacy interests in a home. The Court found that Congress has a substantial interest in improving mine safety, an industry with a notorious history of hazardous conditions. Furthermore, warrantless inspections are necessary because hazards can be easily concealed if advance warning is given. Finally, the Court determined that the Act provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant because it is sufficiently pervasive and defined. It limits the discretion of inspectors by mandating specific inspection frequencies and standards, thereby notifying the owner that their property is subject to periodic inspection. The Court rejected the argument that an industry must have a "long tradition" of regulation to be subject to warrantless searches, noting that such a rule would arbitrarily exempt dangerous new industries like nuclear power.

Dissent - Justice Stewart

Yes, the inspection scheme violates the Fourth Amendment because stone quarries do not have the long tradition of government supervision required to justify a warrant exception. The dissent argued that previous exceptions to the warrant requirement (Colonnade and Biswell) were based on the implied consent of a business owner entering a historically heavily regulated field. Since stone quarries were not federally regulated until 1966, they lack this tradition. The dissent contended that the majority's logic effectively allows Congress to bypass the Fourth Amendment simply by declaring an industry to be "pervasively regulated" and passing a statute authorizing warrantless searches.

Concurrence - Justice Stevens

No, the statute is valid, though the reliance on the "long tradition" of regulation debate is unnecessary. The concurrence argued that the rationale used in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. was flawed, but agreed that the Mine Safety Act is distinguishable from the OSHA statute in Barlow's because it is more specific. Justice Stevens maintained that the public interest in safety justifies the inspection program regardless of how long the industry has been regulated.

Concurrence - Justice Rehnquist

No, the judgment is correct, but only because the quarry constitutes an "open field" where Fourth Amendment protections are minimal. The concurrence disagreed with the majority's reasoning regarding pervasive regulation, arguing that Congress could not use that same logic to authorize warrantless searches for criminal statutes (like drug laws). However, because a stone quarry is largely visible to the naked eye and not an enclosed structure, the owner has no reasonable expectation of privacy that would require a warrant.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the "administrative search" exception to the warrant requirement. It moves the doctrine away from a strict historical analysis (requiring a "long tradition" of regulation) toward a functional analysis of the regulatory scheme's pervasiveness and certainty. The decision establishes that new industries can be subject to warrantless inspections if the statute is carefully tailored. It distinguishes the Mine Safety Act from the Occupational Safety and Health Act (analyzed in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.) by emphasizing that the Mine Act applies to a specific dangerous industry with a defined inspection schedule, whereas OSHA applied broadly to all businesses with almost unbridled inspector discretion.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Donovan v. Dewey (1981)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"