Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco

Last updated
Camara v. Municipal Court
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 15, 1967
Decided June 5, 1967
Full case nameCamara v. Municipal Court of The City and County of San Francisco
Citations387 U.S. 523 ( more )
87 S. Ct. 1727; 18 L. Ed. 2d 930
Case history
Prior237 Cal. App. 2d 128, 46 Cal. Rptr. 585 (Dist. App. 1st Dist. 1965); probable jurisdiction noted, 385 U.S. 808(1966).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas
DissentClark, joined by Harlan, Stewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Frank v. Maryland (1959)

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case that overruled a previous case ( Frank v. Maryland , 1959) [1] and established the ability of a resident to deny entry to a building inspector without a warrant.

Contents

Background

In 1963, a housing inspector from San Francisco's health department entered an apartment building to conduct a routine inspection to locate possible code violations. The building manager informed the inspector that a tenant might be using his space contrary to permitted policy. The inspector approached the tenant to enter the area, but the tenant denied entrance for lack of a search warrant. The inspector returned twice more, again without a search warrant, and was again denied entry. A complaint was subsequently filed against the tenant, and he was arrested for violating a city code. He filed suit under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The California district court of appeal, relying on the previous case of Frank v. Maryland (1959), [1] upholding a conviction in similar circumstances, ruled against the tenant. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision in Frank v. Maryland should be overruled.

Decision

Writing for the Court, Justice White wrote that, “having concluded that Frank v. State of Maryland, [1] to the extent that it sanctioned such warrantless inspections, must be overruled, we reverse.” [2] He first reviewed principles of the Fourth Amendment, noting that “the basic purpose of this Amendment...is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.” [2] He then reviewed Frank's reasoning, “re-examin[ing] of the factors which persuaded the Frank majority to adopt” [3] its approach. He disagreed with Frank that routine inspections are peripheral and that “it is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.” [4] He reviewed other aspects of Frank, and found that “administrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interest protected by the Fourth Amendment.” [5]

White then discussed “whether some other accommodation between public need and individual rights is essential” [5] when dealing with public health and safety. He noted that routine inspections are necessary to ensure health and safety compliance with public codes, and that such inspections are well within common law history. Therefore, “area inspection is a ‘reasonable’ search of private property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” [6]

Because the inspection is reasonable, when government officials are inspecting premises for health and safety compliance, “it seems likely that warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry. Similarly, the requirement of a warrant procedure does not suggest any change in what seems to be the prevailing local policy, in most situations, of authorizing entry, but not entry by force, to inspect.” [7]

However, because the tenant had refused entry, a warrant was necessary, so charging the tenant for refusing entry without a warrant was unconstitutional. The ruling of the lower court was vacated and remanded.

Dissent

In a dissent to two cases (See v. City of Seattle and this case), Justice Clark wrote, “Today, the Court renders this municipal experience [to inspect buildings], which dates back to Colonial days, for naught by overruling Frank v. Maryland and by striking down hundreds of city ordinances throughout the country and jeopardizing thereby the health, welfare, and safety of literally millions of people. But this is not all. It prostitutes the command of the Fourth Amendment...and sets up in the health and safety codes area inspection a newfangled ‘warrant’ system that is entirely foreign to Fourth Amendment standards.” [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Knock-and-announce</span> United States law criminal procedure

Knock-and-announce, in United States law criminal procedure, is an ancient common law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a search.

United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face.

The Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) is approved by the Secretary of State for Education – under section 106 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 – to inspect private schools in England. These schools are members of associations, which form the Independent Schools Council.

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view.

United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that customs agents may remove the gas tank from a vehicle crossing the international border in an effort to look for contraband.

In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause. Generally speaking, searches within 100 miles of the border are more permissible without a warrant than those conducted elsewhere in the U.S. The doctrine also allows federal agents to search people at border crossings without a warrant or probable cause. The government is allowed to use scanning devices and to search personal electronics. Invasive bodily searches, however, require reasonable suspicion.

Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), was a 1983 case before the US Supreme Court determining that a warrantless arrest violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

In the United Kingdom a fire safety inspector is a public law enforcement officer responsible for the enforcement fire safety legislation in the United Kingdom.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the search of an automobile by the United States Border Patrol without a warrant or probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. The vehicle was stopped and searched for illegal aliens twenty-five miles (40 km) from the Mexican border. The Court approached the search from four views: automobile search, administrative inspection, heavily regulated industry inspection, and border search. As to the validity of the search under the automobile exception, the Court found no justification for the search under the Carroll doctrine because there was no probable cause. As to the validity of the search under various administrative inspection doctrines, the Court found that the officers lacked an area warrant. As to the validity of the heavily regulated industry inspection, the Court found that the doctrine is not applicable to traveling on a state highway. As to the validity of a border search, the Court found that the site of the stop and the entirety of the road on which the stop occurred was too far from the border to be considered a border search.

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States handed down in 1990. In the case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

In the law of the United States, the mere evidence rule was a historical doctrine that defined the scope of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food Safety and Inspection Service</span> U.S. federal government agency

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the public health regulatory agency responsible for ensuring that United States' commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. The FSIS draws its authority from the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 and the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970. The FSIS also acts as a national health department and is responsible for the safety of public food-related establishments as well as business investigation.

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a seizure of property like that which occurs during an eviction, even absent a search or an arrest, implicates the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the Amendment protects property as well as privacy interests, in both criminal as well as civil contexts. Finally, saying that "certain wrongs affect more than a single right", the Court left open the possibility that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections against deprivation of property without due process of law may also be implicated.

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The "special needs" exception is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general requirement that government searches be supported by a warrant and probable cause. The exception applies when (1) the government conducts programmatic searches that are primarily aimed at advancing some special need other than criminal law enforcement, and (2) the government’s search program is reasonable given the balance of public and private interests.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Frank v. Maryland , 359 U.S. 360 (1959).
  2. 1 2 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967).
  3. ↑ Camara, 387 U.S. at 529.
  4. ↑ Camara, 387 U.S. at 530.
  5. 1 2 Camara, 387 U.S. at 534.
  6. ↑ Camara, 387 U.S. at 538.
  7. ↑ Camara, 387 U.S. at 539-40.
  8. ↑ Camara, 387 U.S. at 547 (Clark, J., dissenting).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.