Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
16 OSHC (BNA) 1609, 16 F.3d 1455, 1994 CCH OSHD 30,369 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative inspection plan that uses an employee complaint as a trigger to authorize a full-scope, 'wall-to-wall' inspection of a workplace is not derived from neutral sources and thus violates the Fourth Amendment's probable cause standard established in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.
Facts:
- Trinity Industries, Inc. operated a manufacturing plant in Sharonville, Ohio.
- On February 23, 1988, a Trinity employee filed a formal complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging specific safety hazards, including improperly wired equipment and obstructed aisles.
- Trinity refused to grant OSHA permission to inspect its facility.
- OSHA's subsequent warrant application sought authority not only for a limited inspection based on the complaint but also for a conditional full-scope ('wall-to-wall') inspection.
- This conditional full-scope inspection was based on an administrative plan, OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45A.
- The plan permitted a full-scope inspection if: 1) an employee complaint was filed, 2) the establishment was in a high-hazard industry, 3) it had not been recently inspected, and 4) its lost workday injury rate was at or above the national average.
- After obtaining a warrant and reviewing Trinity's records, OSHA determined Trinity's injury rate was 13.6, well above the national average of 4.2.
- OSHA then conducted comprehensive safety and health inspections of the entire facility, which resulted in numerous citations and proposed penalties.
Procedural Posture:
- After Trinity Industries refused entry, OSHA obtained an administrative inspection warrant from a federal magistrate judge.
- Trinity filed a motion to quash the warrant, which the magistrate judge denied.
- The U.S. District Court affirmed the magistrate judge's order, denying Trinity's motion to quash.
- OSHA conducted the inspections, issued citations, and proposed penalties of almost $33,000.
- Trinity challenged the citations in two separate administrative actions, which were consolidated before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
- The ALJ denied Trinity's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the full-scope inspection.
- On review, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) affirmed the ALJ's denial of the motion to suppress.
- Trinity Industries then appealed the Commission's final order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 an OSHA administrative plan (OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45A) that permits the expansion of a limited inspection based on an employee complaint into a full-scope establishment inspection violate the Fourth Amendment's requirement that such searches be based on a general administrative plan derived from neutral sources?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyce F. Martin, Jr.
Yes, the administrative plan violates the Fourth Amendment. A warrant for an administrative inspection requires probable cause, which can be based on either specific evidence of a violation or a showing that the business was chosen based on a general administrative plan derived from neutral sources. The flaw in OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45A is that it is not derived from neutral sources; the initiation of the full-scope search hinges on the filing of an employee complaint, which is not a neutral trigger. By allowing a complaint to trigger a full-scope search, the plan circumvents the Supreme Court's mandate in Barlow's. However, the evidence obtained from the search is not suppressed because the Secretary of Labor's agents acted in objectively reasonable good faith reliance on a facially valid warrant that had been approved by both a magistrate and a district court, thus satisfying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon.
Concurring - Batchelder
Yes, the plan is unconstitutional. The concurrence emphasizes that the critical failure of OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45A is its use of an employee complaint as a trigger, which injects a subjective, non-neutral element into the selection process and violates the requirement from Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. that a plan be 'derived from neutral sources.' An employee may file a complaint to harass or retaliate against an employer, making the resulting government invasion arbitrary. While the good-faith exception applies here, this ruling serves as notice to OSHA within the Sixth Circuit that future reliance on warrants based on this invalid plan will not be considered 'good faith,' and any evidence obtained will be suppressed.
Analysis:
This decision invalidates OSHA's CPL 2.45A inspection program within the Sixth Circuit, clarifying the Fourth Amendment's neutrality requirement for administrative search plans under Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. It establishes that an administrative plan's neutrality is compromised if triggered by a non-neutral event like an employee complaint, which could be motivated by bias. The ruling creates a higher procedural bar for OSHA, requiring the agency to first obtain a warrant limited to the complaint and then, if initial findings justify it, seek a second warrant for a full-scope inspection. While applying the Leon good-faith exception here, the court's holding effectively eliminates that defense for future OSHA inspections conducted under a similar scheme in the circuit.
