Legal Document

339 U.S. 1 70 Supreme Court Reporter 468 94 L.Ed. 599 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAv.LITTLE. Number 302. Argued Jan. 11—12, 1950. Decided Feb. 20, Mr. Chester or Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Gray, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jeff Busby, respondent. Anne X. Alpern, Pittsburgh, Pa., the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers as amicus curiae. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. An information was filed against respondent Geraldine Little in District Columbia charging that she had interfered with a Health Department inspector performance his official duties. The evidence showed told health officer, who no search warrant, not to enter her home inspect its sanitary condition; also refused unlock door. She convicted and fined $25. Appeals reversed, holding Fourth Amendment's prohibition unreasonable searches seizures forbade officer respondent's private without warrant. 62 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd Series 874. United States Circuit affirmed on same grounds. 85 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 178 Federal 13. case raises important questions concerning legal provisions protecting people by special periodic inspection elimination potential sources disease. We granted certitorari, 338 866, 141. 2 In this constitutional arguments have extended far beyond comparatively narrow issues involved particular case. At one extreme argues Amendment has application whatever inspections investigations made officers; preserve public health, officers may judicial warrants premises, buildings residences at any reasonable hour, owner's consent. opposite extreme, it is argued can ever be except property Between these two extremes are suggestions requires premises where object obtain criminal punishment there conditions imminently dangerous life but municipalities other governing agencies lawfully provide general routine hours warrants. impressive array facts presented uniform practices local governments such connection sanitation, plumbing, buildings, etc. 3 Neither case, nor law which prosecution rests, basis sweeping determination all varied types investigations, searches. Yet decision requirement might reaching unexpected implications closely related now before us. This therefore an appropriate apply our sound policy deciding if record permits final disposition cause non-constitutional See Rescue Army versus Court, 331 549, 568 575, 67 1409, 1419—1423, 91 1666, cases cited. Applying policy, we find unnecessary decide whether required warrant here. For even Officer lawful right persuaded statements were 'interference' guilty misdemeanor under controlling law.1 4 regulation violating set out part below.2 It occupants shall keep them 'clean wholesome'; 'examine examined building supposed reported unsanitary condition'; 'any person * regulations, interfering preventing authorized thereby, deemed misdemeanor. *' occupant house inside very from wholesome.'3 then went home. away door locked. While he standing outside door, returned. protested home, claiming entry would violate rights. neither used threatened force kind.4 view found courts below, question boils down mere refusal accompanied remonstrances substantial grounds kind interference prohibited regulation.5 hold not. 5 Although always indispensable ingredient offense discharge duties, criticisms usually held equivalent unlawful interference.6 Nor does express language here impose duty owners assist their homes. prohibit 'hindering' 'refusing permit inspection,' sharp contrast separate statute enacted Congress adds phrases prohibitions 'prevention.'7 word 'interfere' cannot fairly interpreted encompass failure 6 Had objected officer's thereby waived objections.8 privacy holds too high place system laws justify statutory interpretation nothing more than did judgment affirming setting aside conviction affirmed. 7 Affirmed. 8 DOUGLAS took consideration 9 BURTON, whom REED concurs, dissenting. 10 If interpret ordinance Columbia, seems me action effective conduct violated my opinion, also, duties seeking perform, authority District, reasonable, general, routine, accepted character, protection safety, they being performed protect secure persons, houses, papers, effects seizures. 11 Accordingly, should sustained, reversed. lower courts, apparently preoccupied issue, refer question. Ordinarily hesitate spoken. See, e.g., Griffin States, 336 704, 718, 69 814, 820, Here, however, interpretative so enmeshed complete order. '2. That every occupying occupied, owner thereof, clean wholesome; if, upon Inspector ascertained building, yard, condition herein required, part, hereinbefore specified, notified thereof wholesome fail neglect within time allowed said notice liable penalties hereinafter provided. '10. examine condition, make examination; *.' '12. violating, aiding abetting misdemeanor, shall, Police punished fine less $5 $45.' Commissioners' Regulations Concerning Use Occupancy Buildings Grounds, promulgated April 22, 1897, amended July 28, 1922. complaint 'there accumulation loose uncovered garbage trash halls certain persons residing therein failed avail themselves toilet facilities.' There some distance attempted grab papers officer. both based incident. Those treated having been ground enter. charged 'did hinder, obstruct, interfere include words 'hinder' 'obstruct.' These do appear Act provides abatement nuisances specifically authorizes delegated Commissioners 'during hours, necessary correct' amounting nuisance. 34 Statutes-at-Large 115. But collected Notes, 48 American 746, 749, 755; Ann.Cas.1914B, 814. 'Sec. 11. member board condemnation insanitary acting direction prevent, refuse work done board.' 157, 159. another interesting difference between above involved. expressly limits a.m. p.m.; limitation indeed type, though petitioner admits 'reasonableness' read into it. 49 1917, 1919, § 10. collections cited note supra.

Classification Label: 0