Opinion ID: 449079
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pervasively Regulated Business Exception

Text: 17 The state contends that its policy of warrantless entry into family day care homes is justified under the pervasively regulated business exception to the warrant requirement. This exception arose in Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60 (1970), and United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972), where the Supreme Court approved warrantless inspection of commercial enterprises engaged in businesses closely regulated and licensed by the government. In Colonnade, the Court, in holding that Congress had broad authority to fashion standards of reasonableness for searches and seizures in the liquor industry, stressed the long history of federal regulation of the alcoholic beverage industry. 397 U.S. at 77, 90 S.Ct. at 777. The long history of federal regulation found in Colonnade was not present in Biswell, but in upholding warrantless searches in the firearms industry in Biswell, the Court found dispositive the pervasive nature of the governing regulations and the urgent and paramount federal interest furthered by the warrantless inspections at issue. Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315-17, 92 S.Ct. at 1596-97. The Court concluded that an individual choosing to accept a license and engage in a pervasively regulated business did so with the knowledge that he would be subject to effective inspection. Id. at 316, 92 S.Ct. at 1596. See also Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. at 313, 98 S.Ct. at 1595 (The businessman in a regulated industry in effect consents to the restrictions placed upon him.) (quoting from Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 271, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2538, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973)). 18 The central difference between the Colonnade-Biswell line of cases and those in which warrantless administrative searches have been found unreasonable so as to violate the Fourth Amendment has been the type of regulation involved. Persons successfully protesting warrantless searches were not engaged in any regulated or licensed businesses, but were subjected to such searches pursuant to general regulatory schemes which indiscriminately covered many different businesses or covered conditions in private residences or automobiles. See, e.g., Michigan v. Clifford, 104 S.Ct. 641 (1984) (municipal arson investigators' warrantless entry of a private residence to investigate the cause of a recent fire); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (municipal arson investigators' warrantless entry of a commercial building absent exigent circumstances to investigate the cause of a fire); Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978) (warrantless inspection of business premises pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 657(a)); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 270-71, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2538-39, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (Border Patrol's warrantless search of automobile 25 miles north of the Mexican border); See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967) (warrantless inspection of private commercial premises to obtain compliance with Seattle's Fire Code pursuant to a municipal ordinance); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (warrantless inspection of private apartment buildings for housing code violations pursuant to a municipal ordinance). None of these cases involved inspections similar to those found in Colonnade and Biswell which applied to only one, discrete, pervasively regulated industry. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. at 313, 98 S.Ct. at 1820. In Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., the Supreme Court answered the government's argument that requiring a warrant for OSHA inspectors meant that warrantless search provisions in certain other regulatory statutes were also constitutionally invalid by stating that: 19 The reasonableness of a warrantless search, however, will depend upon the specific enforcement needs and privacy guarantees of each statute. Some of the statutes cited apply only to a single industry, where regulations might already be so pervasive that a Colonnade-Biswell exception to the warrant requirement could apply. 20 436 U.S. at 321, 98 S.Ct. at 1825. Therefore, these cases demonstrate that a statute authorizing warrantless searches which applies only to a single pervasively regulated industry, where urgent governmental interests are furthered by such regulatory inspections, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 600, 101 S.Ct. 2534, 2538, 69 L.Ed.2d 262 (1981). 21 In Donovan v. Dewey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Colonnade-Biswell exception to the warrant requirement by upholding warrantless searches of a pervasively regulated industry that did not have a long history of regulation. 452 U.S. at 605-06, 101 S.Ct. at 2541-42. Donovan involved the warrantless inspection of the working portions of a stone quarry pursuant to the Federal Mines Safety Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 813(a). In analyzing whether such inspections offended the Fourth Amendment, the Court first stated that it was undisputed that a substantial governmental interest in improving the health and safety conditions in mines existed and that Congress could have reasonably determined that warrantless inspections were necessary to properly enforce the Act. 452 U.S. at 602-03, 101 S.Ct. at 2539-40. The Court then determined that the Act's inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, provided a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. Id. at 603-06, 101 S.Ct. at 2540-42. The Court based this determination on five points: (1) the regulation of mines was sufficiently pervasive so that the owner of a facility could not help but be aware that he would  'be subject to effective inspection,'  id. at 603, 101 S.Ct. at 2540 (quoting United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. at 316, 92 S.Ct. at 1596); (2) the regulations required the inspection of all mines and specifically defined the frequency of inspection; (3) the standards with which mine operators had to comply were all specifically set forth in the Federal Mines Safety Act or in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations; (4) the Federal Mines Safety Act required that all mine operators be informed of all applicable standards; and (5) the Act prohibited forcible entries and required that the government, when refused entry, file a civil action in federal court to obtain an injunction against future refusals. Id., 452 U.S., at 603-05, 101 S.Ct. at 2540-2542. Finally, the Court rejected the contention that the Colonnade-Biswell exception applied only to those heavily regulated industries which have a long history of government regulation, finding that such a requirement would lead to absurd results which the Fourth Amendment's central concept of reasonableness would not tolerate. Id. at 605-06, 101 S.Ct. at 2541-42. Instead, the Court held that it is the pervasiveness and regularity of the federal regulation that ultimately determines whether a warrant is necessary to render an inspection program reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 606, 101 S.Ct. at 2542. 22 Applying this analysis to the case before us, we conclude that warrantless inspections of family day care homes do not offend the Fourth Amendment. The majority of children receiving care in family day care homes are under five years of age and some are as young as six days old. The California Legislature was plainly aware that such children, away from their parents, need the special protection of the state and that the interests, health, and safety of children are of paramount importance in our society. Parents who use day care, especially low-income parents who must place their children in affordable day care while they work, must be assured that strict monitoring of health and safety conditions will keep their children safe. 23 Recognizing the magnitude of abuses in child day care facilities susceptible to easy concealment, such as over-capacity, lack of supervision, accessibility to poisonous chemicals or firearms, open pools, hazardous stairwells, and sexual or physical abuse, the Legislature could reasonably determine that a system of warrantless inspection is necessary in this case. The Legislature demonstrated its conclusion that a warrant requirement would significantly frustrate effective enforcement of the statutes and regulations governing family day care by requiring all inspections to be unannounced. See Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 1597.55(b), (d), (e). If a warrant were required, a delay in inspecting a home, during which a violation can be corrected, is unavoidable. Recognizing the states' vital interest in protecting children in family day care homes, we therefore follow the Donovan v. Dewey decision to defer to this legislative determination of the necessity of unannounced inspection, 452 U.S. at 603, 101 S.Ct. at 2540, since a warrant requirement could impede the  'specific enforcement needs'  of the statutes and regulations governing family day care. Id. (quoting Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. at 321, 98 S.Ct. at 1825). See also Trustees for Alaska v. E.P.A., 749 F.2d 549, 559-561 (9th Cir.1984). 24 Even though a warrant requirement clearly might impede the  'specific enforcement needs'  of the statutes and regulations governing family day care, Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. at 603, 101 S.Ct. at 2540 (quoting Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. at 321, 98 S.Ct. at 1825), we still must consider whether the regulation of family day care homes is sufficiently pervasive and defined [so] that the owner of such a facility cannot help but be aware that he 'will be subject to effective inspection.'  Id. (quoting United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. at 316, 92 S.Ct. at 1596). In short, we must determine whether the statute's inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. 452 U.S. at 603, 101 S.Ct. at 2540. 25 Family day care homes are heavily regulated. The Legislature's belief that it has a responsibility to insure the health and safety of children in family homes that provide day care is expressed in the pervasive regulation and monitoring of family day care homes. Cal.Health & Safety Code Sec. 1597.30(a), (g). The statutes governing child day care require the Department to develop rules and regulations which effectively oversee the health and safety standards governing the operation of the family day care homes. Id. Sec. 1596.81(a). The regulations promulgated by the Department completely regulate the environment in which family day care is provided, including the heating and ventilation, the safety hazards such as pools, stairs, firearms, and stored chemicals, poisons, and detergents; the cleanliness of the home; and the amount of supervision provided for the children. 9 22 Cal.Admin.Code Secs. 88024, 88026, 88028, 88036. Any new licensee must be given a copy of applicable regulations and later provided with copies of any revisions to the regulations. Cal.Health & Safety Code Sec. 1596.855. 26 In Donovan v. Dewey similar factors led the Court to uphold warrantless searches of stone quarries under the Colonnade-Biswell exception. 452 U.S. at 603-06, 101 S.Ct. at 2540-42. The detailed environmental standards here clearly indicate that the regulation of family day care homes is sufficiently pervasive so that the provider cannot help but be aware that he or she  'will be subject to effective inspection.'  Id. at 603, 101 S.Ct. at 2540 (quoting United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. at 316, 92 S.Ct. at 1596). 27