Opinion ID: 672025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: OSHA's Warrant-based Inspection

Text: 14 We turn now to the validity and scope of OSHA's administrative search warrant. OSHA does not contest Petitioners' assertion that the contractual right of entry that State and federal inspectors enjoyed on Project 8 lands did not extend to the materials and effects over which Petitioners had exclusive dominion. Consequently, Petitioners retained a legitimate expectation of privacy in those areas and aspects of their construction site that lay beyond plain view. See Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1820, 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978) (recognizing the businessperson's constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property). Although the State of Ohio consented to OSHA's expanded search of Project 8, its consent could not validly extend to property and effects over which it lacked dominion. Cf. Donovan v. A.A. Beiro Constr. Co., 746 F.2d 894, 901-02 (D.C.Cir.1984) (explaining that third-party authority to consent to search of a common area extends to most objects in plain view, [but] it does not automatically extend to the interiors of every enclosed space within the area). OSHA concedes that its search encompassed such property. Accordingly, the constitutionality of OSHA's expanded inspection of Project 8 turns on the validity of the administrative search warrant that OSHA procured. See Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978). 15 To obtain a valid search warrant, OSHA must establish administrative probable cause in one of two ways. First, OSHA may demonstrate specific evidence of an existing violation. Marshall v. Barlow's, 436 U.S. at 320, 98 S.Ct. at 1824. Alternatively, OSHA can show that  'reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an ... inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular [establishment].'  Id. citing Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 538, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1736, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). OSHA's warrant application relief on both specific evidence of current violations and the Secretary's administrative plan to establish probable cause to search Project 8 in its entirety. The Commission rightly found that a full-scope inspection was called for under the provisions of a general administrative plan for the enforcement of the Act. 16 Under the terms of OSHA's then-effective administrative plan, a Sec. 8(f)(1) Complaint inspection in a low-hazard industry could be expanded to cover the entire worksite if the Complaint inspection led to  'information indicating the likelihood of serious hazards in other portions of the [workplace].'  The Commission found that OSHA's initial, Complaint-based inspection provided it with ample reason to believe that it was likely to discover other serious hazards in the remaining areas of the highway rehabilitation project. We have no reason to disturb that finding. 17 Although Petitioners rely on Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061 (11th Cir.1982), to argue that OSHA may not rely on a Complaint about specific violations in a delimited area to establish administrative probable cause to conduct a full-scale worksite investigation, they misapply Donovan to the facts of this case. The Commission did not find that OSHA's May 4th Complaint inspection itself justified the full-scale investigation of Project 8. Rather, the Commission determined that OSHA's administrative plan justified a more expansive site inspection because, in the course of investigating the Complaint, OSHA observed multiple, potentially serious safety violations beyond those mentioned in the Complaint. 18 Petitioners further argue that the administrative search warrant was invalid because it was based upon an application in which OSHA knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth made material misrepresentations. Specifically, Petitioners contend that OSHA's application failed to inform the magistrate that the traffic safety problem at the worksite had abated and that Petitioners expressly objected to OSHA's warrantless search. Although Petitioners believe this information to be critical to any determination of administrative probable cause, the Commission found, and we agree, that they do not undercut the Secretary's showing of administrative probable cause for a full-scope investigation. Notwithstanding OSHA's failure to mention that the site's traffic safety hazard had abated, OSHA's warrant application contained ample evidence of additional safety hazards at the Project 8 construction site.