Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.
436 U.S. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978)
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches protects commercial premises, and therefore, a warrant is required for administrative inspections conducted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). The warrant need not be based on probable cause that a violation exists, but rather on a showing that the inspection is part of a reasonable legislative or administrative plan.
Facts:
- Barlow's, Inc. was an electrical and plumbing installation business in Pocatello, Idaho, managed by Ferrol G. 'Bill' Barlow.
- On September 11, 1975, an inspector from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) arrived at Barlow's, Inc. to conduct an inspection.
- The inspector stated that Barlow's, Inc. had been selected as part of a routine agency selection process, not in response to any specific complaint.
- Barlow asked if the inspector had a search warrant.
- Upon learning the inspector did not have a warrant, Barlow refused to allow him to enter the nonpublic working areas of the business, citing his Fourth Amendment rights.
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Labor petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Idaho for an order to compel Barlow's, Inc. to permit the inspection.
- The District Court issued the requested order on December 30, 1975.
- Barlow again refused entry and filed his own action in the District Court, seeking an injunction against warrantless searches under the OSHA statute.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened and ruled in favor of Barlow, holding that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant for the inspection and that Section 8(a) of the Act was unconstitutional.
- The District Court entered an injunction against the Secretary of Labor, prohibiting such warrantless searches.
- The Secretary of Labor (appellant) filed a direct appeal of the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which authorizes warrantless inspections of the work areas of any business within the Act's jurisdiction, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. Section 8(a) of OSHA, by authorizing warrantless inspections of business premises, violates the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement protects commercial buildings just as it does private homes. While an exception exists for 'pervasively regulated' industries like liquor and firearms (Colonnade, Biswell), OSHA's broad application to all businesses in interstate commerce does not fit this narrow exception. The court rejected the Secretary of Labor's argument that warrantless searches are essential for surprise and effectiveness, stating that the government can obtain ex parte warrants to preserve surprise. The warrant required for an administrative search does not need to meet the criminal standard of probable cause; instead, it can be issued based on a showing that the specific business was chosen for inspection through a general administrative plan derived from neutral sources.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The warrantless inspections authorized by Section 8(a) of OSHA are not 'unreasonable' under the Fourth Amendment. The dissent argued that the majority misapplied the Warrant Clause, which is textually linked to probable cause, to a situation where probable cause of a violation is not required. The proper analysis should be under the Fourth Amendment's general 'Reasonableness' Clause. The dissent contended that the legislative judgment of Congress, which determined that warrantless inspections are necessary for the Act's effectiveness, should be respected. The protections provided by an administrative warrant—such as informing the owner of the inspection's authority and scope—are already accomplished by the statute and OSHA regulations, making the warrant a superfluous formality that burdens enforcement resources.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extended Fourth Amendment warrant protections to nearly all commercial properties, not just those in historically regulated industries. By requiring a warrant for routine administrative safety inspections, the Court checked the power of federal regulatory agencies. However, by establishing a lower 'administrative probable cause' standard—based on neutral criteria rather than specific suspicion—the Court created a balance, allowing for necessary government regulation while protecting business owners from the unbridled discretion of field inspectors. This case established the framework for administrative warrants that is still used today in various regulatory contexts.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. (1978)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"