Opinion ID: 1998547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: warrantless administrative inspections

Text: The only issue properly raised by the Commonwealth in this appeal is whether valid consent was obtained to inspect Slaton's prescription files. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to respond briefly to the majority's gratuitous observation that, [a]lthough the pharmaceutical field is a highly regulated industry, the Pennsylvania legislature has not seen fit to authorize warrantless searches. Majority Opinion, supra, 383 Pa.Superior Ct. at 307, 556 A.2d at 1346. I find that it is far from clear that such inspections have not been authorized. The relevant statute provides in pertinent part: 35 P.S. § 780-124. Administrative Inspections and Warrants.       (b)(1) For the purpose of inspecting, copying, and verifying the correctness of records, reports, or other documents required to be kept or made under this act and otherwise facilitating the carrying out of his functions under this act, the secretary is authorized, in accordance with this section, to enter controlled premises and to conduct administrative inspections thereof, and of the things specified in this section, relevant to those functions. (2) Such entries and inspections shall be carried out through officers or employes (thereinafter referred to as `officers') designated by the secretary. Any such officer upon stating his purpose and presenting to the owner, operator, or officer in charge of such premises (i) appropriate credentials and (ii) a written notice of his inspection authority (which notice in the case of an inspection requiring, or in fact supported by, an administrative inspection warrant shall consist of such warrant), shall have the right to enter such premises and conduct such inspection at reasonable times. (3) Except as may otherwise be indicated in an applicable inspection warrant, the officer shall have the right: (i) to inspect and copy records, reports, and other documents required to be kept or made under this act; (ii) to inspect, within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, controlled premises and all pertinent equipment, finished and unfinished drugs and other substances or materials, containers, and labeling found therein, and, except as provided in this subsection, all other things therein (including records, files, papers, processes, controls, and facilities) appropriate for verification of the records, reports, and documents referred to in subclause (i) or otherwise bearing on the provisions of this act; and (iii) to inventory any stock of any controlled substance therein and obtain samples of any such substance or article.       (c) A warrant under this section shall not be required for the inspection of books and records pursuant to an administrative subpoena issued in accordance with any provisions of any Act of Assembly nor for entries and administrative inspections (including seizures of property):       (5) In any other situations where a warrant is not constitutionally required. (Emphasis added). Though I do not feel justified in passing on the question of whether the above provisions succeed in constitutionally authorizing warrantless pharmacy inspections, I note that an at least plausible argument could be made that § 780-124(c)(5) was intended to authorize such inspections, and that the provisions of § 780-124(b)(1-3) were intended to provide the necessary statutory schema for such inspections under the rationale of New York v. Burger , Donavan v. Dewey , United States v. Biswell , and Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States . Indeed, it might well be argued that the statutory authorization in § 780-124(b & c) is more explicit than that gleaned from the statutes analyzed in Lutz, Peterson, and Lanchester. [2] We are, however, simply not called upon to address that issue in this case as it has been neither raised nor briefed by the Commonwealth here or in the trial court, and therefore must be deemed to have been waived.