New York v. Burger
482 U.S. 691 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a commercial premises in a 'closely regulated' industry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the state has a substantial government interest in the regulatory scheme, the warrantless inspections are necessary to further that scheme, and the inspection program provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.
Facts:
- Joseph Burger owned and operated a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York, where he dismantled automobiles and sold their parts.
- On November 17, 1982, five plainclothes police officers from the Auto Crimes Division entered Burger's junkyard to conduct an inspection pursuant to a New York state law governing vehicle dismantlers.
- The officers asked to see Burger's license and his 'police book,' which is a required record of all vehicles and major parts in his possession.
- Burger informed the officers that he did not have either a license or a police book.
- The officers then announced their intent to inspect the premises, and Burger did not object.
- During the inspection, the officers copied down the Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) from several vehicles and parts in the junkyard.
- After checking the VINs against a police computer, the officers determined that Burger was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts, and he was arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Burger was charged in Kings County Supreme Court (a state trial court) with possession of stolen property and unregistered operation as a vehicle dismantler.
- Burger moved to suppress the evidence from the search on constitutional grounds, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The trial court reaffirmed its decision after Burger moved for reconsideration.
- On appeal by Burger, the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- On further appeal by Burger, the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) reversed, holding that the search was unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the New York Court of Appeals.
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 New York statute authorizing warrantless administrative inspections of automobile junkyards violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No, the New York statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment. A warrantless inspection of a pervasively regulated business is reasonable if it meets a three-part test: (1) there is a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme, (2) the warrantless inspection is necessary to further that scheme, and (3) the statute provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant by advising the owner of the search's legality and defined scope, and limiting the discretion of the inspecting officers. Here, New York has a substantial interest in combating auto theft, a problem closely linked to junkyards. Warrantless, unannounced inspections are necessary for deterrence, as operators could otherwise hide stolen goods. Finally, the statute adequately substitutes for a warrant by limiting inspections to regular business hours, to licensed dismantlers, and to the examination of records, vehicles, and parts. The fact that the administrative scheme has the same ultimate purpose as penal laws (deterring theft) and that police officers conduct the inspections does not render it unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the statute violates the Fourth Amendment. The vehicle-dismantling industry is not 'closely regulated' in the same way as industries like firearms or mining; the state's regulations are minimal. Even if it were closely regulated, the statute is not an adequate substitute for a warrant because it provides no limits on the frequency of searches or guidance on selecting businesses for inspection, giving police 'unguided discretion.' The fundamental defect is that the statute's true purpose is not administrative but is solely to uncover evidence of criminal acts. Once Burger admitted he had no license or records, all possible administrative violations were known, and the subsequent search of his inventory was a pretextual criminal investigation that required a warrant.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the 'closely regulated industry' exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It establishes that the pervasiveness of a current regulatory scheme, rather than a long history of regulation, can be sufficient to justify warrantless searches. The ruling affirms that an administrative inspection scheme is not pretextual simply because it shares the same ultimate goals as criminal statutes, such as deterring theft. This precedent makes it easier for states to conduct warrantless searches of businesses linked to specific types of crime, blurring the line between administrative regulation and criminal law enforcement.
Unlock the full brief for New York v. Burger