Opinion ID: 749818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of Suppression Argument

Text: 7 Globe seeks to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the two inspections by the compliance officers, because the belligerent conduct of the officers rendered the inspection unreasonable, and because no search warrant was obtained. It is undisputed that Globe failed to raise these arguments to the OSH Review Commission in the Petition for Discretionary Review. 4 Rather, it contends that it did not have to make the argument to the Commission to preserve the issue on appeal. In the alternative, it maintains that even if the suppression argument is not preserved, extraordinary circumstances justify appellate review of this issue. 8 The OSH Act provides that in a review of an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals, no objection that has not been argued before the Commission shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances. 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). 5 In In re Establishment Inspection of Kohler Co., 935 F.2d 810 (7th Cir.1991), this court dismissed an appeal because Kohler had challenged an OSHA safety inspection warrant before the federal district court, instead of proceeding through OSHA's appeal process. We reasoned that [u]nless administrative hearings take place, there will be no occasion to suppress evidence. Id. at 812. Therefore, we concluded, the objections should be addressed first in proceedings before the Commission. While Kohler did not specifically differentiate between review by the administrative law judge and review by the Commission, the holding of the case was that review by the Commission is a prerequisite to review by this court. Id. at 814 (We ... now join the other circuits that require parties challenging completed OSHA inspections on Fourth Amendment grounds to address their arguments to the Review Commission before turning to the federal courts.). Congress could have chosen to provide that raising an issue before a hearing examiner is sufficient for appellate review, as it did in the National Labor Relations Act, but it chose not to. Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) (No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.) (emphasis added); see also Keystone Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 539 F.2d 960, 963 (3d Cir.1976). 9 Globe relies on Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Marshall, 592 F.2d 373, 375-77 (7th Cir.1979). Weyerhaeuser arose out of a challenge to a safety inspection warrant sought by OSHA and issued by a district court. Prior to the Weyerhaeuser case, the OSHA Review Commission announced that it categorically refused to rule on the constitutionality of administrative search warrants. Weyerhaeuser held that because raising the issue to the Commission would therefore be futile, Weyerhaeuser was excused from having to exhaust its administrative remedies. Id. at 376; accord, Federal Casting Div. v. Donovan, 684 F.2d 504, 507-08 (7th Cir.1982); see also Kohler, 935 F.2d at 813. Kohler distinguished Weyerhaeuser on the grounds that the Commission now considers constitutional challenges to OSHA inspection warrants. 935 F.2d at 813-14. Kohler controls, and unless extraordinary circumstances excuse raising the suppression argument in the Petition for Discretionary Review, we will not review it.