Yes. A government agency can get a court's help to see a company's records as part of an investigation, even before it’s decided if the company has to follow the law. The court said that just because you're a newspaper doesn't mean you are exempt from general business laws. More importantly, asking for documents with a subpoena isn't the same as police breaking down your door. The Fourth Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches) only requires the government's request to be 'reasonable.' A request is reasonable if the agency is allowed to do the investigation, it's not asking for everything under the sun, and the documents are related to the investigation. The whole point of an investigation is to find out the facts, including whether the law even applies. Making the agency prove that first would stop most investigations before they could even begin.

No. This is a bad idea because it gives government agents too much power. Giving an official who isn't a judge the power to demand private papers is dangerous and could be abused. Many people might get intimidated by an official-looking request and hand over documents they don't have to, without a judge ever getting involved. To protect people's freedom, only courts should have the power to issue these kinds of orders. This would make sure there is a neutral check on government power before it affects people's privacy.

Yes, government officials don't need a judge's approval before they can enforce a request for company records to investigate if labor laws are being followed. The government's right to investigate is similar to how a jury investigates before a trial. Courts don't have to decide if the company is covered by the labor law before the investigation. The government official's request for records is legal as long as it's not random or beyond what the law allows, and it must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The courts made the right decision because the requests were legal and the records were needed for the investigation. Newspapers aren't exempt from having to provide evidence when subpoenaed, and the Fourth Amendment's protection is met when the investigation is legally authorized and the documents requested are relevant.

I disagree because I don't approve of government officials issuing demands for records without involving the courts. If this power is overused or abused, it can ruin people's freedom and mess up the whole system. Letting a government official demand someone's private records without going through the courts is just asking for this power to be abused. A lot of people's rights get violated without the courts ever getting involved because they just give in to the demands that seem official. The only way to prevent this is to make sure only courts have the power to issue these kinds of orders. This would actually make it easier to enforce the law, because people are more likely to cooperate when their rights are respected in the process.

"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a subpoena for the seizure of documents be reasonable

—we held that the press is not exempt from the generally applicable requirement that a citizen produce evidence in response to a subpoena.

The Supreme Court has distinguished "cases of actual search and seizure," which require probable cause, from those involving an administrative subpoena, which the Court characterized as "constructive" searches

The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment requires "specification of the documents to be produced adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry. Necessarily, as has been said, this cannot be reduced to formula; for relevancy and adequacy or excess in the breadth of the subpoena are matters variable in relation to the nature …

The gist of the protection is in the requirement, expressed in terms, that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.**** The requirement of `probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation'literally applicable in the case of a warrant is satisfied, in that of an order for production, by the court's determination that the investigation is authorized by Congress, is for a …

The purpose of an administrative investigation "is to discover and procure evidence, not to prove a pending charge or complaint, but upon which to make one if, in the Administrator's judgment, the facts thus discovered should justify doing so."

T] he Fourth [Amendment], if applicable, at the most guards against abuse only by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be `particularly described,'if also the inquiry is one the demanding agency is authorized by law to make and the materials specified are relevant

The Supreme Court has rejected the contentions that applying the Fair Labor Standards Act to a newspaper-publishing business abridged the freedom of press guaranteed by the first amendment

"Congress has made no requirement in terms of any showing of `probable cause'***. The result therefore sustains the Administrator's position that his investigative function, in searching out violations with a view to securing enforcement of the Act, is essentially the same as the grand jury's, or the court's in issuing other pretrial orders for the discovery of evidence, and is …

Even though the subpoena duces tecum was within the arbitrator's authority by law, it must still be relevant and reasonable to avoid violating the Fourth Amendment.

No. The judicial enforcement of an administrative subpoena for a lawfully authorized investigation does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if the agency has not first proven coverage in court. An agency's statutory authority to investigate violations of an act necessarily includes the authority to investigate the threshold question of coverage. The Fourth Amendment does not require a prior adjudication of coverage for an administrative subpoena to be valid; it merely requires that the subpoena be reasonable. A subpoena is reasonable if the investigation is within the agency's authority, the demand is not too indefinite, and the information sought is reasonably relevant. The Court rejected the notion that enforcing such a subpoena is equivalent to an actual search and seizure requiring probable cause, likening the Administrator's role to that of a grand jury, which can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just to assure itself that it is not. The court's role in an enforcement proceeding is limited to determining if the agency exceeded its authority or is acting arbitrarily, not to decide the ultimate question of coverage which Congress committed to the agency in the first instance.

Yes (implied). Permitting a non-judicial administrative agent to issue a subpoena is an unconstitutional practice that invites abuse of power. While the subpoena is not self-enforcing, many individuals will comply simply due to the 'air of authority' with which the demand is made, leading to invasions of privacy without any judicial oversight. The dissent argues that to safeguard liberty against the corrosion of administrative overreach, the power to issue subpoenas should be confined exclusively to the judiciary. This would ensure that a neutral check is in place before a citizen's private papers are demanded by the government, thereby protecting priceless individual rights from the zeal of administrative agents.

Yes. The enforcement of administrative subpoenas duces tecum issued by the Wage and Hour Administrator does not require a prior judicial determination of coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act because the Administrator's investigative function is akin to that of a grand jury, and the judicial function is not abused by leaving the determination of coverage to the Administrator in the preliminary investigation of possible violations. The subpoenas are enforceable provided they are not arbitrary or exceed statutory authority, and they must be reasonable in the context of the Fourth Amendment. The safeguards of judicial supervision ensure that the subpoenas issued and enforced according to law do not constitute harassment. The judgments of the lower courts are affirmed because the subpoenas were issued in accordance with the statute's authorization, and the records sought were relevant to the investigation. The press is not exempt from the generally applicable requirement to produce evidence in response to a subpoena, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is satisfied by the court's determination that the investigation is authorized and the materials sought are relevant.

I dissent because I am unable to approve the use of non-judicial subpoenas issued by administrative agents. Excessive use or abuse of authority can destroy man's instinct for liberty and undo the administrative processes themselves. To allow a non-judicial officer, unarmed with judicial process, to demand the books and papers of an individual is an open invitation to abuse of that power. Many invasions of private rights occur without the restraining hand of the judiciary ever intervening because people yield solely due to the air of authority with which the demand is made. Only by confining the subpoena power exclusively to the judiciary can there be any insurance against this corrosion of liberty. Statutory enforcement would be made easier by doing so because a people's desire to cooperate with the enforcement of a statute is in direct proportion to the respect for individual rights shown in the enforcement process.

Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot