See v. Seattle
387 U.S. 541 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to administrative inspections of private commercial premises. A warrant is required for non-consensual administrative inspections of areas not open to the public, though the standard for obtaining such a warrant may be based on reasonable legislative or administrative standards rather than probable cause of a specific violation.
Facts:
- See owned and operated a locked commercial warehouse in Seattle.
- A Seattle Fire Department inspector, acting under a city ordinance, attempted to enter and inspect the warehouse.
- The attempted inspection was part of a routine, periodic, city-wide canvass to ensure compliance with the Seattle Fire Code.
- The inspector did not have a search warrant and there was no probable cause to believe a violation existed within the warehouse.
- See refused to permit the inspector to enter the locked warehouse without a warrant.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Seattle charged See in a local court with violating a city ordinance for refusing to permit a warrantless inspection.
- See was convicted and received a suspended fine.
- See (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Washington.
- The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the conviction, holding that different standards of reasonableness apply to searches of businesses versus dwellings.
- See (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court against the City of Seattle (as appellee), which noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
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 local ordinance compelling a property owner to permit a warrantless, non-consensual administrative inspection of a locked commercial warehouse, as part of a routine area-wide canvass, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes. A warrantless, non-consensual administrative inspection of a locked commercial warehouse violates the Fourth Amendment. The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property. The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to administrative searches of both residential and commercial properties to ensure that the decision to search is not left to the unreviewed discretion of an officer in the field. While the standard for obtaining an administrative warrant may be a flexible standard of reasonableness rather than probable cause of a specific violation, the warrant itself is a necessary procedural safeguard.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No. A routine administrative inspection of a commercial warehouse does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. This decision wrongly overrules the precedent of Frank v. Maryland, which correctly recognized that such inspections are indispensable for public health and safety. The majority's new administrative warrant system degrades the Fourth Amendment's probable cause standard by allowing for 'boxcar warrants' issued as a matter of course. This new, burdensome procedure will severely undermine the effectiveness of vital public safety programs that have been accepted for over 150 years.
Analysis:
This decision, along with its companion case Camara v. Municipal Court, significantly expanded the scope of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement by applying it to administrative searches. It established that both homes and businesses are protected from warrantless, non-consensual inspections, even when the purpose is regulatory rather than criminal investigation. The case created the concept of an 'administrative warrant,' which requires a lesser showing than traditional probable cause, balancing public safety needs with individual privacy rights and leaving a lasting impact on regulatory enforcement.
