Examples Of Emergency Cases

1. Emergencies
In an emergency situation, the damage might already be done if an administrative agent has to wait for the warrant. An emergency is anything that is an immediate danger to public safety and health. Therefore courts have found it constitutionally reasonable to allow warrantless inspections in such a situation (Weaver, R. L., 2013). Throughout the history, we have seen court cases holding the emergency exception to administrative search and seizure. According to Rothstein, M. A. (1979), in Camara V. The Municipal Court City and County, the court even mentioned that though they might be rare the following cases proved to be some examples of emergency situation cases.
North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago (1908)
A Chicago
law allowed health inspectors to inspect cold storage facilities for unwholesome food. During an inspection in 1908, unwholesome foods (rotten poultry) were detected in the North American Cold Storage facility. The company was ordered to destroy the rotten poultry because it was unfit to human consumption. The company refused seeking an injunction for destruction. The city temporarily shut down the company and destroyed the spoiled poultry. The company took it to court arguing that the destruction violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law (a hearing before court). The court ruled that the health department was allowed to use its police power to destroy the food and that a hearing was not necessary. Even though the company was entitled to a hearing afterward, the constitution does not require a hearing before seizing if there is a threat to public health. In this case, if the administration had to wait for a warrant, the spoiled product could have been consumed and perhaps causing the consumers to get sick North.
Jacobson V. Massachusetts (1904)
Another emergency situation justifying warrantless administrative search was Jacobson V.
Massachusetts in 1904. During an outbreak of smallpox, the state of Massachusetts required compulsory vaccination against the disease. Jacobson refused to receive the vaccine because he believed vaccines were unsound and they made him sick before. He was fined and he refused to pay the fee stating that compulsory vaccination violated his rights. He argued that he was free to care for his own body as he wishes. Both the Massachusetts State Constitution and the Massachusetts Supreme Court rejected his claim. He made an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which held the decision of the state. The United States Supreme Court concluded that the state was allowed to use its police power to restraint individuals for the common good. In this case the smallpox outbreak is a justified emergency
situation.
2. Consent
Most administrative inspections are conducted on the basis of a consent. A consent is considered a waiver to the warrant requirement (Rothstein, M. A. 1979). Throughout the years, different interpretations of warrant requirement by the courts have been seen when residents and business owners refused to consent to inspection. The below cases describe some of those situations.
Frank V. Maryland (1959)
After a resident complained about having rats in her basement, the city of Baltimore started a series of inspection in the area to find the source of the rats. Frank refused health inspectors access to his house demanding a warrant. He was charged and arrested for city code violation. The appellant made an appeal to the Criminal Court of Baltimore, but it was rejected. The court claims that as the benefit of the search to the public weighs more than Frank’s interests of privacy; no warrant was necessary even if there is no consent. It was eight years later in the Camara case that the US Supreme Court would reverse this decision of the Criminal Court of Baltimore.
Camara v. The Municipal Court City and County (1967)
During a routine housing inspection in 1967 to locate code violations, a San Francisco resident refused to consent to the inspection because the inspector did not have a warrant.
After three attempts to enter the premises with no consent and no warrant, a complaint was filed against the resident by the health department and he was arrested for code violation. The defendant filed a suit against the State stating a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments violation. The state rejected his claim relying on the Frank V. Maryland case in which a conviction was upheld in a similar situation. He then made an appeal at the United States Supreme Court. Contrary to the Frank V. Maryland case, the US Supreme Court ruled against the state’s decision and concluded that although the inspection was reasonable, it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to charge the defendant for refusing entry without consent. The inspectors should have sought a warrant when consent was
denied.
See V. City of Seattle (1967)
Another case similar to the Frank V. Maryland case and the Camara V. The Municipal Court City and County is the See V. City of Seattle. As in the previous two cases, the defendant was charged and arrested for violating city codes after refusing the inspectors access to his private commercial premises without a warrant. An appeal from the US Supreme Court reversed the city’s conviction stating the same argument as in the Camara case. The courts stated that the businessman has the same constitutional right as of the defendant in the Camara case and that inspections should not be different just because the premises’ type is different. In both cases, warrant is required due to the fact that there was no consent to entry.