Legal Document

387 U.S. 523 87 Supreme Court Reporter 1727 18 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 930 Roland CAMARA, Appellant,v.MUNICIPAL COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO. Number 92. Argued Feb. 15, 1967. Decided June 5, [Syllabus from pages 523-524 intentionally omitted] Marshall W. Krause, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Albert Harris, Jr., appellee. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion of Court. 1 In Frank versus State Maryland, 359 360, 79 804, 3 877, this upheld, by a five-to-four vote, state court conviction homeowner who refused to permit municipal health inspector enter and inspect his premises without search warrant. Ohio ex rel. Eaton Price, 364 263, 80 1463, 4 1708, similar was affirmed an equally divided Since those closely decisions, more intensive efforts at all levels government contain eliminate urban blight have led increasing use such inspection techniques, while numerous decisions fully defined Fourth Amendment's effect on action. E.g., Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081; Ker California, 374 23, 83 1623, 10 726. view growing nationwide importance problem, we noted probable jurisdiction in case See City Seattle, 541, 1737, 943, re-examine whether administrative programs, as presently authorized conducted, violate Amendment rights are enforced against through Fourteenth Amendment. 385 808, 31, 17 50. 2 Appellant brought action California Superior alleging that he awaiting trial criminal charge violating Francisco Housing Code refusing warrantless residence, writ prohibition should issue because ordinance authorizing inspections is unconstitutional its face. The denied writ, District Appeal affirmed, petition hearing. properly raised had considered courts federal constitutional questions now presents Though there were no judicial findings fact proceeding, shall set forth parties' factual allegations. On November 6, 1963, Division Inspection Department Public Health entered apartment building make routine annual possible violations city's Code.1 building's manager informed appellant, lessee ground floor, using rear leasehold personal residence. Claiming occupancy did not allow residential confronted appellant demanded premises. lacked returned 8, again warrant, inspection. A citation then mailed ordering appear district attorney's office. When failed appear, two inspectors 22. They required law under § 503 Code: 5 'Sec. RIGHT TO ENTER BUILDING. Authorized employees departments or agencies, so far may be necessary performance their duties, shall, upon presentation proper credentials, right enter, reasonable times, any building, structure, perform duty imposed them Municipal Code.' nevertheless access Thereafter, complaint filed charging him with lawful violation 507 Code.2 arrested December released bail. demurrer denied, prohibition. has argued throughout litigation contrary Amendments it authorizes officials private dwelling warrant cause believe exists therein. Consequently, contends, prosecuted unconstitutionally 503. Relying other States,3 held does 'is part regulatory scheme which essentially civil rather than nature, inasmuch section creates limited scope exercised unreasonable conditions.' Having concluded extent sanctioned inspections, must overruled, reverse. I. 7 provides that, 'The people secure persons, houses, papers, effects, searches seizures, violated, Warrants issue, but cause, supported Oath affirmation, particularly describing place searched, persons things seized.' basic purpose Amendment, recognized countless Court, safeguard privacy security individuals arbitrary invasions governmental officials. thus gives concrete expression free society.' Wolf People Colorado, 338 25, 27, 69 1359, 1361, 93 L.Ed. 1782. As such, enforceable 30, 1628, 8 been general agreement fundamental translation abstract 'unreasonable seizures' into workable guidelines decision particular cases difficult task many years members Nevertheless, one governing principle, justified history current experience, consistently followed: except certain carefully classes cases, property consent 'unreasonable' unless valid See, e.g., Stoner 376 483, 84 889, 11 856; Jeffers, 342 48, 72 93, 96 59; McDonald States, 335 451, 191, 153; Agnello 269 20, 46 4, 70 145. explained Johnson 333 10, 14, 68 367, 369, 92 436: 9 officers thrust themselves home also grave concern, only individual society chooses dwell freedom surveillance. reasonably yield is, rule, decided officer, policeman enforcement agent.' upheld purposes locating abating suspected public nuisance. Although can arguably distinguished facts,4 generally interpreted carving out additional exception rule supra. case, ruling core appellant's challenge here. We proceed re-examination factors er suaded frank majority adopt construction searches. To majority, fire, health, housing programs 'touch most periphery important interests safeguarded protection official intrusion,' U.S., S.Ct., 809, merely determine physical conditions exist do comply minimum standards prescribed local regulartory ordinances. ask owner open doors 'evidence action' used owner's conviction, historic 'self-protection' jointly protected Fifth Amendments5 said involved, less intense 'right intrusion privacy.' Id., 365, 808. 12 agree condition hostile typical policeman's fruits instrumentalities crime. For reason alone, differed great bulk But cannot stake these 'peripheral.' It surely anomalous say when behavior.6 instance, even law-abiding citizen very tangible interest limiting circumstances sanctity broken authority, possibility entry guise sanction serious threat family security. And accepting Frank's remarkable premise, kind here considering jeopardize owner. Like laws, codes processes. some cities, discovery leads complaint.7 Even cities where produces compliance order,8 refusal offense, verified second inspection, warrant.9 Finally, demonstrates, itself crime, punishable fine jail sentence. 13 suggested, appellee reasserts, justificaton permitting safety First, 'designed least demand occupant.' 809. ordinances hedged safeguards, rate inspector's standard reasonableness if warrant.10 addition, argument proceeds, process could function effectively field. entire area based legislative assessment broad area's age condition. Unless magistrate review policy matters, 'rubber stamp' 14 our opinion, arguments unduly discount behind machinery contemplated Under present system, demands entry, occupant way knowing code involved requires premises, limits power search, himself acting authorization. These reviewed neutral reassessment agency canvass area. Yet, risking search. possesses sufficient fortitude take risk, here, never learn about allows gain entry. practical system leave subject discretion This precisely invade circumscribed requirement disinterested party need cited, Page 529, simply protections provided procedure needed context; statutory safeguards substitute individualized review, invoked risk penalty. 15 final justification suggested rule: vigorously populations dependent housing, sanitation standards, effective means enforcing systematized structures. Of course, applying standard, including dimension, receive careful consideration. think misses mark. question not, stage least, made, they made example, gambling raids police necessarily made. assessing creaton requirement, justifies type question, authority evidenced turn depends burden obtaining likely frustrate Schmerber 384 757, 770—771, 86 1826, 1835—1836, 16 908. nowhere urged achieve goals within confines requirement. Thus, find dispositive. summary, hold significant intrusions conducted lack traditional guarantees individual, reasons put Maryland upholding insufficient justify substantial weakening protections. Because nature consideration, however, conclusions beginning, end, inquiry. gave recognition unique character require warrants; reject disposition ignoring accommodation between essential. II. 'no cause.' Borrowing argues procedure, warrants contains being enforced. disagree. obtained, 'probable cause' tested mandate reasonableness. apply obviously first focus allegedly constitutionally citizen. investigation, undertake recover specific stolen contraband goods. would hardly sweeping city hope goods might found. goods, 'reasonable' will uncovered dwelling. 19 Unlike pursuant aimed securing city-wide property. primary prevent unintentional development hazardous safety. fires epidemics ravage large areas, unsightly adversely affect economic values neighboring structures, municipalities impose enforce existing structures.11 determining reasonable—and inspection—the weighed terms enforcement. 20 There unanimous among familiar field seek universal periodic structures.12 debate focused, agency's conduct unavoidably appraisal whole, knowledge each building. Appellee contends adopted, eliminated seeking dealt crushing blow. 21 meeting contention, first, minute portion population refuse second, event given preference conducting inspections. argument, true, irrelevant meaning assertion Unfortunately, ready test balancing invasion entails. number persuasive combine support code-enforcement long acceptance. 367—371, 809—811. Second, dangerous prevented abated, yet doubtful canvassing technique acceptable results. Many conditions—faulty wiring obvious example—are observable outside indeed apparent inexpert himself. neither nor evidence involve relatively citizen's privacy. Both dissent emphatically conclusion: 22 'Time experience forcefully taught places, either matter systematic area-by-area or, treat indispensable maintenance community health; greatly hobbled blanket acts. Th n eed preventive great, after seen granted officials; apparently welcomed insignificant few. Certainly, vitiated thought 158 ago, revealed abuse inroad dominant sanctioned.' 372, 811. 23 '* * suggest show same proof obtain Where considerations facts inference clearly different investigation undertaken. Experience facilities further showing substandard maintained. passage period situation issuance account sought.' 383, (Mr. Douglas, dissenting). 24 satisfied respect Such vary program enforced, time, (e.g., multifamily house), area, depend applied authorize 'synthetic warrant' thereby lessen overall 373, 812. agree. designed guarantee interest. still ultimate standard. If contemplated, suitably restricted Cf. Oklahoma Press Pub. company Walling, 327 186, 66 494, 90 614. approach endangers time-honored doctrines applicable investigations makes nullity full competing and, doing, best fulfills 273—274, 1468—1469 (opinion Brennan). III. 25 holding emphasizes controlling reasonableness, nothing today intended foreclose prompt traditionally emergency situations. North American Cold Storage Chicago, 211 306, 29 101, 53 195 (seizure unwholesome food); Jacobson Commonwealth Massachusetts, 197 11, 358, 49 643 (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Compagnie Francaise de Navigation Vapeur Louisiana Board Health, 186 380, 811, 129 (health quarantine); Kroplin Truax, 119 St. 610, 165 Northeastern KF135 N59 498 (summary destruction tubercular cattle). hand, compelling urgency time day. Moreover, citizens light specify seems normally sought satisfactory immediate Similarly, change what prevailing policy, situations, force, inspect. IV. 26 appellants charged crime demanding access; fact, three trips attempt Yet obtained unable verify appropriate No doubt, landlord, manager, contend Chapman 365 776, 828; 153. Assuming parties alleged, therefore conclude insist convicted appears law. 27 judgment vacated remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. 28 Judgment remanded. 86(3) Code, house operators pay license fee defray cost buildings. Bureau 'at once year often thereafter deemed necessary.' occupancy, prescribes units contain, issued until obtained. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. Any person, agent violates, disobeys, omits, neglects, refuses with, resists opposes execution provisions order Superintendent, Director Works, guilty misdemeanor thereof punished exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00), imprisonment, six (6) months both otherwise separate offense every day violation, disobedience, omission, neglect continue.' Givner State, 210 Md. 484, 124 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd 764 (1956); Louis Evans, 337 South Western 948 (Mo.1960); 168 123, 151 Eastern (1958) aff'd 1708 (1960). Rees, 258 Iowa 813, 139 406 (1966); Hadley, 351 Mass. 439, 222 681 (1966), appeal docketed Jan. 1967, 1179, Misc., O.T.1966; Laverne, N.Y.2d 304, 251 N.Y.S.2d 452, 200 441 (1964). Frank, Baltimore 'have suspect nuisance house, cellar enclosure' before met observed extreme structural decay pile rodent feces Section 'cause' four Justices controlled Frank. 264, 265, 1464, 1465, n. Boyd 116 616, 524, 746. Compare 766—772, 1833—1836, Abel 362 217, 254—256, 683, 705—706, 668 Brennan, dissenting); Columbia Little, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 178 Federal 13, Law Reports, 954, aff'd, 339 1, 468, 94 599. New York, N.Y., Administrative D26—8.0 Washington, D.C., Regulations 2104. prevalent procedure. Note, Enforcement Codes, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 801, 813—816. display times,' emergency. exists.' Some notify residents advance, mail posted notice, impending 3, Abbate Bros. Ill.2d 337, 142 691; Cty Louisville Thompson, 869 (Ky.); Adamec Post, 273 N.Y. 250, 120, 109 1110; Paquette Fall River, 368, 155 775; Richards Columbia, 227 S.C. 538, 88 683; Boden Milwaukee, Wis.2d 318, 99 156. Osgood & Zwerner, Rehabilitation Conservation, Contemp.Prob. 705, 718 43; Schwartz, Crucial Areas Law, 34 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 401, 423 93; Comment, Rent Withholding Improvement Substandard Housing, Calif.L.Rev. 316—317; 807, 851; 1115, 1124—1125. 311(a) Urban Development Act 1965, Statutes-at-Large 478, 42 KF62 1468 (1964 ed., Supp. I), grants funds 'to municipalities, counties assisting localities carrying concentrated deteriorated deteriorating areas enforcement, together improvements locality, expected arrest decline area.'

Classification Label: 0