Court Opinion

ID: 9611506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:57:28.196958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:14.686499
License: Public Domain

WOOD, Chief Judge (Specially Concurring). The State contends the inspection scheme involved in this case plays a crucial part in regulating motor vehicles. By inference, the argument is that the inspection scheme plays a crucial part in the State’s efforts to control the traffic in stolen vehicles. I agree that the Legislature could properly consider an inspection scheme to be crucial. But that does not answer the question. Is there an urgent governmental interest that this crucial inspection scheme be implemented by warrantless searches? The majority opinion cites cases which required warrants for fire, health, and housing inspection programs (Camara, supra) and for safety hazards (Marshall, supra). These important programs cannot be distinguished from the motor vehicle inspection in this case which inspected vehicles in a commercial business. The special circumstances involving liquor (Colonnade, supra) and firearms (Biswell, supra) do not exist in this case. Although the motor vehicle business is a pervasively regulated business and there cannot be any great expectation of privacy in a business so pervasively regulated, there is no urgent governmental interest justifying a warrantless inspection scheme. Since probable cause in the criminal law sense is not required, the warrant requirement imposes no great impediment to the statutory inspection scheme. I concur with Judge Hendley’s opinion. The purpose of this special concurrence is to point out that the inspection scheme will not be impeded by requiring a warrant.