Document: 464 U.S. 408 104 S.Ct. 769 78 L.Ed.2d 567 Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, et al., Appellantsv.LONE STEER, INC. No. 82-1684. Argued Nov. 29, 1983. Decided Jan. 17, 1984. Syllabus The Labor (Secretary) is authorized by § 11(a) the Fair Standards Act 1938 (FLSA) to investigate and gather data regarding wages, hours, other conditions employment determine whether an employer violating Act, 9 subpoena witnesses documentary evidence relating any matter under investigation. Pursuant these provisions, a Department official, upon entering appellee motel restaurant, served administrative duces tecum on one appellee's employees, directing employee appear at area Wage Hour Office with certain payroll sales records. Appellee refused comply sought declaratory injunctive relief in Federal District Court, claiming that constituted unlawful search seizure violation Fourth Amendment. Court held that, although had complied applicable FLSA provisions issuing subpoena, enforcement would violate Amendment because not previously obtained judicial warrant. Held: did Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 186, 66 494, 90 L.Ed. 614, controlling. An entry into public lobby restaurant for purpose serving sort governmental act forbidden Here, itself authorize either or inspection premises but merely directed produce wage hour records, no nonconsensual areas open was made. Marshall Barlow's, Inc., 436 307, 98 1816, 56 305, Camara Municipal 387 523, 87 1727, 18 930, distinguished. While subpoenaed employer, action federal district court, may question reasonableness before suffering penalties refusing it, available defenses do include right insist warrant as condition precedent valid subpoena. Pp. 413-416. Reversed. Alan I. Horowitz, Washington, D.C., appellants. Richard G. Peterson, Denver, Colo., appellee. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Section (FLSA Act), 29 U.S.C. 211(a), authorizes Act.1 FLSA, 209, empowers investigation.2 those official Lone Steer, located Steele, North Dakota. officer agent personal knowledge records Division United States Bismarck, Dakota, In filed challenge validity 565 F.Supp. 229, Constitution We noted probable jurisdiction Secretary's appeal, --- ----, 103 2451, 77 1331 (1983), we now reverse judgment 2 On January 6, 1982, Al Godes, Compliance Officer telephoned Susann White, manager, inform her he intended begin investigation following morning request she have all employees past two years. White Godes later day him it be convenient conduct morning. After some preliminary skirmishing between parties, during which inquired about scope reason proposed appellants declined provide specific information, Gerald Hill, Assistant Area Director from arrived February 2, conducting waiting issue here employees. having custody specifically described therein, required law maintain. See CFR §§ 516.2(a), 516.5(c) (1983). 3 Appellants counterclaimed concluded actions "unquestionably comport amended, 201, seq." Juris. Statement 6a. Relying our decision 305 (1978), however, insofar they without Barlow's this declared unconstitutional Occupational Safety Health 1970 (OSHA) inspectors enter employer's inspections work areas. rejected appellants' arguments dispositive stating: 4 "It reasonable conclude exigencies commercial safety health designed protect well-being supply more compelling bases proceeding than circumstances presented here, where determining compliance regulations. reasoning Supreme applies equal if greater—force instant situation. 5 sum, I hold proceed inspecting its 11 first warrant." 8a.3 6 think undertook decide case when "enter premises" inspect only "entry" appellants, so far record discloses, Hill entered attempt stipulation facts app. 11-17, incorporated juris. statement 2a-8a, describe what happened next: 7 "They asked Ms. were told expected shortly. They offered coffee, waited area. 20-30 minutes, appeared, Mr. Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum Karen Arnold." 8 App. 15. scarcely premises; relevant regional office 25 miles away. 10 antecedent warrants supra, 930 (1967), are quite different case. OSHA inspector non-public working electrical plumbing installation business. San Francisco housing apartment building city. also City Seattle, 541, 1737, 943 (1967) (involving similar fire premises). each case, such could conducted consent owner premises. It plain us cases turned effort government make non-consensual entries public. As indicated, made Thus enforceability governed, concluded, rather 614 (1946). claim power conferred violates 12 "The short answer objections present actual seizure, raise orders court production specified been validly made; sufficient showing appears justify setting them aside. No person has petitioners' against their will, them, seize examine books, papers assent, otherwise pursuant after adequate opportunity . ." 13 U.S., 195, S.Ct., 498 (footnotes omitted). cited approval companion Camara, constitutional requirements subpoenas follows: 14 settled agency corporate books requires sufficiently limited scope, purpose, directive will unreasonably burdensome." 15 544, 1740 (footnote Morton Salt Co., 338 632, 652-653, 70 357, 368-369, 94 401 (1950). 16 clear warrant, nonetheless protection allowing raising court. 544-545, 1739-1740; Press, 208-209, 505. Our holding simply reaffirms way leaves defenseless burdensome requiring documents. 17 insists "[t]he procedure used reveal[s] use inextricably intertwined process," Brief 11, states established policy seek expressly relying authority FLSA. Id., 12. need observe protected involved accordingly. 19 provides: Administrator his designated representatives practices industry subject chapter, places (and transcriptions thereof), facts, conditions, practices, matters deem necessary appropriate violated provision aid chapter. Except provided section 212 title subsection (b) section, shall utilize bureaus divisions investigations section. title, bring 217 restrain violations chapter". Although grants investigatory Administrator, Reorg.Plan 1950, 1004 (1949-1950 comp.), reprinted U.S.C.App. p. 743, functions officers including transferred who turn delegate functions. provides hearing Trade Commission 1914, 49, "to jurisdiction, powers, duties committees." pertinent part: "[T]he Commission, duly agents, times access to, examination, copy person, partnership, corporation being investigated proceeded against; require attendance testimony Any member sign subpoenas, members examiners administer oaths affirmations, witnesses, receive evidence. Such evidence, place States, hearing. And disobedience invoke courts within inquiry carried may, contumacy refusal obey issued order ordered, give touching question; failure punished contempt thereof." Because Court's seemed bar onto premises, motion alter amend judgment, arguing "not address Secretary." 15a. compel documents Bismarck office, emphasizing denied opinion. 13a-14a.

Category: 0