Document: 436 U.S. 499 98 S.Ct. 1942 56 L.Ed.2d 486 State of MICHIGAN, Petitioner,v.Loren TYLER and Robert Tompkins. No. 76-1608. Argued Jan. 10, 1978. Decided May 31, Syllabus Shortly before midnight on January 21, 1970, a fire broke out in respondents' furniture store, to which the local department responded. When chief arrived at about 2 a. m., as smoldering embers were being doused, discovery plastic containers flammable liquid was reported him, after he had entered building examine containers, summoned police detective investigate possible arson. The took several pictures but ceased further investigation because smoke steam. By 4 m. been extinguished firefighters departed. removed left. At 8 his assistant returned for cursory examination building. About an hour later made another pieces evidence. On February 16 member state arson section photographs store inspection, followed by other visits, time additional evidence information obtained. Respondents subsequently charged with conspiracy burn real property offenses. Evidence secured from testimony specialist used trial, resulted their convictions, notwithstanding objections that no warrants or consent obtained entries inspection seizure evidentiary items. Supreme Court reversed convictions remanded case new concluding "[once] blaze [has been] have left premises, warrant is required re-enter search unless there premises abandoned." Held: 1. Official cause must adhere procedures Fourth Amendment applicable States Fourteenth Amendment. Since all this "without proper consent" not "authorized valid warrant," each one illegal it falls within "certain carefully defined classes cases" are mandatory. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 523, 528-529, 87 1727, 1730-1731, 18 930. Pp. 504-509. (a) There diminution person's reasonable expectation privacy protection simply official conducting firefighter rather than policeman, purpose ascertain look crime. Searches administrative purposes, like searches crime, encompassed showing probable necessary secure may vary object intrusiveness search, necessity persists. 505-506. (b) To fire, show more bare fact occurred. magistrate's duty assure proposed will be reasonable, determination requires inquiry into need intrusion, hand, threat disruption occupant, other. 506-508. 2. A burning clearly presents exigency sufficient proportions render warrantless entry "reasonable," and, once extinguish blaze, thereafter, seize plain view causes fire. Thus violations committed firemen's nor chief's removal containers. P. 509. 3. facts case, moreover, morning re-entries 22 departure personnel since these continuation first entry, temporarily interrupted poor visibility. 510-511. 4. post-January detached initial exigency, without consent, they violated Amendments. such excluded retrial. 511. 399 Mich. 564, 250 N.W.2d 467, affirmed. Jeffrey Butler, Pontiac, Mich., petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Jesse R. Bacalis, Detroit, respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 respondents, Loren Tyler Tompkins, convicted Michigan trial court violation Mich.Comp.Laws § 750.157a (1970).1 Various physical based personal observation, through unconsented offi ials onto burned admitted trial. appeal, holding "the unconstitutional therefore inadmissible." 584, 477 (1977). We granted certiorari consider applicability Amendments fire-damaged premises. 434 814, 50, 51 70. * Tyler's Auction, Oakland County, leased respondent Tyler, who conducted business association According various witnesses, responded "just watering down embers" when Fire Chief See scene around It See's responsibility "to determine make reports." met Lt. Lawson, informed him two found Using portable lights, gutted filled steam, Concluding "could possibly arson," called Police Detective Webb, 3:30 Webb interior finally abandoned efforts briefly "[l]ooked throughout rest see if any evidence, what was." station, where turned over safekeeping. neither building, respondents challenged introduction objection 570, N.W.2d, 470. 3 Four hours Assistant Somerville, whose job "origin fires occur Township." empty. After left, Somerville 9 In Webb's words, discovered suspicious "burn marks carpet, [Webb] could earlier morning, heat, darkness." They also "pieces tape, marks, stairway." leaving obtain tools, carpet sections stairs preserve bits suggestive fuse trail. searched rubble "looking signs showed how caused." Again, seizures. Both objected thereby Sergeant Hoffman Arson Section Auction take photographs.2 During visit during same time, checked circuit breakers, someone inspect furnace, television repairman remains sets ashes. He piece fuse. Over course formed opinions played substantial role establishing refuting lost. His sole "of making seizing evidence." attorney admission moved strike Hoffman's "because got manner."3 5 held only few exceptions, private officials subject requirements "[Once] reenter 583, 477. Applying principle, ruled series began Amendments.4 "record does factually support conclusion premises" accepted lower court's finding " '[c]onsent numerous never defendant Tyler.' Id., 570-571, 476, Accordingly, ordered II 6 decisions firmly establish extends beyond paradigmatic dwelling law enforcement officer fruits instrumentalities As stated 528, 1730, 930, "basic . safeguard security individuals against arbitrary invasions governmental officials." health, inspectors. Their locate abate suspected public nuisance, perform routine periodic inspection. invaded sheltered walls warehouse commercial establishment open public. City Seattle, 541, 1737, 943, Marshall Barlow's, Inc., 307, 311-313, 1816, 1819-1821, 305. These deviations typical thus 7 petitioner argues, however, recent outside individual interests threatened. If occupant set then, words petitioner's brief, "actions has privacy" "he those meaning Amendment." And causes, occupants treated victims view, "[t]he likelihood aggrieved intrusion little badly negligible." This argument persuasive. For even contention establishes abandonment accepted, its second proposition—that innocent inevitably protectible expectations whatever property—is contrary common experience. People go living homes working offices Even impossible, effects often remain correct most courteously welcome inspections origin "even true, [this contention] irrelevant question whether Camara, supra, U.S., 536, S.Ct., 1735. Once recognized retain Amendment, unravels. is, course, impossible justify ground yet proved, conviction cannot ex post facto validate conviction. Thus, wears uniform might started deliberately. under "one governing justified history current experience, consistently followed: except certain cases, 'unreasonable' authorized warrant." 1731. search,5 10 argues would served requiring grounded premise shown investigatory undetermined occurred contends consideration distinguishes concerned conduct inspections. Whereas subjected unexpected way knowing lawfulness argued can hardly factual basis officials' wanting access property. whereas magistrate performs significant function assuring agency's decision particular conforms legislative standards, do rubberstamp application blaze. short, justification simple obvious everyone review time-consuming formality negligible occupant. 11 fails primarily built faulty premise. inspections, balance between competing concerns usually achieved broad guidelines specifying purpose, frequency, scope, manner context searches, programmatic responsive events, particularized necessary. number prior entries, scope day made, lapse continued use owner's intruders relevant factors. though victim's normally yield vital social objective ascertaining important preventing harassment keeping invasion minimum. 544-545, 1739-1740; United Chadwick, 433 1, 9, 97 2476, 2482, 53 538; 323, 1826. 12 addition, deemed aware follow recognize legal authority searches. "when inspector demands [without warrant], municipal code involved lawful limits inspector's power himself acting authorization." 532, 1732. major provide owner reassure entry's legality. 2482. 13 requirement provides context, just owners faced general matter, Court: "Where [of fire] undetermined, prevent occurring recurring, pursuant issued accordance standards or, absent promulgation, judicially prescribed standards; wrongdoing discovered, may, issuance criminal investigative prosecution." But "[i]f authorities seeking prosecution, usual standard cause] apply." III 14 Our compelling action warrant. Warden Hayden, 294, 1642, 782 (warrantless house hot pursuit armed robber); Ker California, 374 23, 83 1623, 726 unannounced imminent destruction evidence). Similarly, regulatory field, our cases importance "prompt warrant, emergency situations." 539, 1736, citing North American Cold Storage Co. Chicago, 211 306, 29 101, L.Ed. 195 (seizure unwholesome food); Jacobson Massachusetts, 197 11, 25 358, 49 643 (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Compagnie Francaise Board Health, 186 380, 812, 46 1209 (health quarantine). 15 "reasonable." Indeed, defy reason suppose firemen entering structure put view. Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 465-466, 91 2022, 2037-2038, 564. floor showrooms. Although appears read justifying fight ends, get begins, dousing last flame. 579, 475. think firefighting unrealistically narrow, however. extinguishing fires, causes. Prompt fire's recurrence, detection continuing dangers wiring defective furnace. Immediate intentional accidental destruction. And, sooner complete duties, less subsequent interference recovery victims. reasons, build ng extinguished.6 constitutional, while inspecting purposes constitutional. IV A. 17 argue, ended license search. Hence, say entitled re-entry four we believe early 22. extinguished, assistants investigation, visibility severely hindered darkness, smoke. departed shortly daylight continue investigation. Little remaining remove doubt legality morning. Under circumstances, find actual first, lack did invalidate resulting B 19 22, entry. invalid Amendments, result must, therefore, V 20 summation, hold Thereafter, 534-539, 1733-1736, iBarlow's, 320-321, 1824-1825. investigations admissible investigating require gather upon traditional Ventresca, 380 102, 85 741, 684. 21 principles affirm judgment ordering trial.7 Affirmed. 23 BLACKMUN joins Parts I, III, IV-A opinion. 24 BRENNAN part case. STEVENS, concurring judgment. 26 Because Part Court's seems assume either place all, I join reasoning. 27 particular, agree suggestion that, searches," ante, 511, complied my opinion, "administrative warrant" satisfy Warrant Clause.1 325, 1827, 305 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Nor otherwise unreasonable reasonable. 28 unannounced, immediate No notice given precedes execution; issued, authorizes force.2 crime entry,3 sanctions abrupt peremptory confrontation sovereign citizen.4 comply constitutional reasonableness, fair inspection.5 protected ways—by existed; notice, existed. preceded advance concur 30 WHITE, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting part. 31 dissent. that: 32 "[A]n searches." Ante, 1951. 33 not, fact, continuations exigent circumstances* inadmissible derived offers sound overturning distinct original if, "reasonable time" criterion, stayed hours—a proposition means clear—the choose instead locked door entirely. willing demonstrates circumstances longer present. situation analogous G. M. Leasing Corp. States, 429 338, 358-359, 619, 631, 50 530 (1977): 34 "The agents' own delay days following observation materials office, seized records, District implicit circumstances. ." 35 some "continuations" ones aid firemen, confuse them, difficult predict re-entry. end, valuable failure seek easily 36 Those deserve clear demarcation authority. Today's recognizes speed focuses attention fighting ongoing firetruck stop courthouse rushing flames. over. Further should accompanied indicating presume enter 37 courts officers re-entering Unless ignore findings, 930 (1967), 943 differ Frank Maryland, 359 360, 79 804, 877 (1959), significance 38 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 39 Brother reasons expressed 328, (1978), "Warrant Clause routine, premises." fall category, appropriate dispute next entirely justified, nothing indicate eminently light 40 evaluating reasonableness feature done damage including interior. Thereafter very likely least until repairs taken place. indication record ever attempt result, forced lock up curious bystanders suffering injury. far reveals, procedure attempted reclaim himself. 41 regardless technically "abandoned" cf. Abel 362 217, 241, 80 683, 698, 668 (1960); Hester 265 57, 44 445, 68 898 (1924), me giving intended situations considered "reasonable" record, investigators occasionally determining voiced slig test actually occasion. App. 54-57. accompanying suggested well caused 56. coupled knowledge of, apparent acquiescence in, sensible person thought ought culprit discovered; indicated sources serve inform one's sense 42 immediately therefrom violate rights. accordingly reverse contrary. substantive offenses property, 750.73 (1970), insured intent defraud, 750.75 (1970). twice before, 29. entries. State's substantially buttressed Oscar Frisch, former employee described helping Tompkins move items old related told instructed mattresses top objects so better. Having concluded post-fire explained different governed then govern case: "While easy task distinguish matter instant task. lawfully focused assembling proof point 577, 474 (citations omitted). enforce codes, 'probable cause' issue exist[s] area satisfied respect dwelling. Such program enforced, passage nature (e. g., multi-family apartment house), condition entire area, necessarily depend specific dwelling." 538, 1736; 1824- 825. LaFave, Administrative Amendment: Cases, 1967 Sup.Ct.Rev. 18-20. widely. single-family identifiable fewer complexities attend spreads large complex engulfs buildings. latter situations, officials—pursuing both origin—to extended period repeatedly buildings, portions thereof. constitutes investigate," recognition exigencies confront serving conditions, individuals' privacy. alleges lacks standing sea ches refused argument, prosecutor failed raise Appeals. 571, 470-471. mean absence timely State, presumed standing. Failure present federal conformance adequate independent barring long legitimate interest enforcing procedural rule. Henry Mississippi, 379 447, 567, 408. See, Safeway Stores Oklahoma Grocers, 360 334, 342 n.7, 1196, 1201, 1280; Cardinale Louisiana, 394 437, 438, 89 1161, 1162, 398. claim Michigan's rule serves purpose. entertain default. "no Warrants shall issue, cause, supported Oath affirmation, particularly describing searched, persons things seized." Wyman James, 400 309, 323-324, 381, 388, 389, observed Wyman, device providing protections citizen; grants government increased invade citizen's Miller 357 301, 307-308, 78 1190, 1194-1195, 1332. obviously can, established case-by-case basis, especially need. 1825 ensures right people persons, houses, papers, effects, seizures." (Emphasis added.) Surely encompasses demand suspect illegality pressing concern. Yet rationale illegality, give order rationale, incentive—indeed disincentive—to obtaining unprecedented. closely parallels existing subpoenas, see, e.g., U.S.C. 1312 (1976 ed.), Professor LaFave points out, embodied English practice. 31-32. recurrence admissible." 578, found, "[I]n hours, weeks extinguished."

Category: 0