CAMARA V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160001-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 15, 2011
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: MISC

Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R0001.00160001-9_/IUNICIPAL COURT.
522 OCTOBER T),.n.vi, i~oo. ~;.
of stock, postponing consideration of the control and
antitrust issues until the transaction was completed some
60 days later. It is regrettable that the Court's pre-
occupation with the future antitrust possibilities of this
situation, fully acknowledged by all but still entirely
speculative, should have led it to interfere, so unneces-
sarily, with the obviously sensible course of procedure
adopted by the Commission.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.
CAi~1ARA v. ~ZLT~TICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALI-
FORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 92. Argued February 15, 1967.-Decided June 5, 1967.
Appellant was charged with violating the San Francisco Housing
Code for refusing, after three efforts by city housing inspectors
to secure his consent, to allow a warrantless inspection of the
ground-floor quarters which he leased and residential use of which
allegedly violated the apartment building's occupancy permit.
Claiming the inspection ordinance unconstiiutional for failure to
require a warrant for inspections, appellant while awaiting trial
sued in a State Superior Court for a writ of prohibition, which
the court denied. Relying on Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360,
and similar cases, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding
that the ordinance did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The
State Supreme Court denied a petition for hearing. Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who
has refused to permit a warrantless code-enforcement inspection of
his personal residence. Frank: v. Maryland, supra, pro tanto
overruled. Pp. 528-534.
(a) The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is
enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through
its prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures is to safe-
guard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary
invasions by governmental officials. P. 528.
(b) With certain carefully defined exceptions, an uncon-
sented warrantless search of private property is "unreasonable."
Pp. 528-529.
(c) Contrary to the assumption of Frank v. Maryland, supra,
Fourth Amendment interests are not merely "peripheral" where
municipal fire, health, and housing inspection programs are in-
volved whose purpose is to determine the existence of physical
conditions not complying with local ordinances. Those programs,
moreover, are enforceable by criminal process, as is refusal to allow
an inspection. Pp. 529-531.
(d) Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified
on the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants;
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160001-9
 524 OCTOBER Th Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160001-9_~~~,TICIPAL COURT. 525
that warrants in such cases are unfeasible; or that area inepectian
prograans could not function under reasonable search-warrant
requirements. Pp. 531-533.
2. Probable cause upon the basis of which ??arrants are to be
ic~ued for area code-enforcement inspections is not dependent on
the inspector's belief that a particular dwelling violates the code
but on the reasonableness of the enforcement agency's appraisal
of conditions in the area as a tivhole. The standards to guide the
magistrate in the issuance of such search warrants will necessarily
vary with the municipal program being enforced. Pp. 53~--539.
3. Search warrants which are required in nonemergency situa-
tions should normally be sought only after entry ?.is refused.
Pp. 539-540.
4. In the nonemergenc}- situation here, appellant had a right to
insist that the inspectors obtain a search warrant. P. 5-10.
23r' Cal. .app. 2d 128, 46 Cal. Rptr. 585, vacated and remanded.
.Marshall 11'. Krause ~rg,ied the cause for appellant.
?'ith him on the briefs was Doruald :'17. CaFien.
Albert u'. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of
California, argued the cause for appellee. ?'ith him on
the brief were Tho~nae C. Lynch, Attorney General, and
Gloria F. DeHart, Deputy Attorney General.
Leo~aard J. Kerpelma~a filed a brief for Homeowners in
Oppositio-i to Housing Authoritarianism, as amuus
curiae, urging reversal.
Briefs of anaici c~~riae, urging affirmance, were filed
by Thonaas 11. O'Connor, John IY'. Sholenberger, Roger
Arnebergh, Barnett 1. Shur, Alexander G. Brazen, David
.Stahl and Robert E. ?Michalski for the l~lember Munici-
palities of the National Institute of l~lunicipal La.w Offi-
cers, and by Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General,
ZVillie J. Davis, Assistant Attorney Ceneral, Edward T.
lblart~in, Deputy Attorney General, Max Rosent~la.tt,
Lewis H. 1T'einstein and Loyd lll. Starrett for the Com-
mona-ealth of~Iassachusetts et al.
523 Opinion of the Court.
Mrt. JusTici! ~ HITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Frank v. 1~7arylalid, 359 LT. S. 360, this Court upheld,
by a five-to-four vote, a state court conviction of a home-
owner who refused t:o permit a municipal health inspector
to enter and inspect his premises without a search
warrant. In Eaton v. Price, 364 L'. S. 263, a similar
conviction was affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Since those closely divided decisions, more intensive
efforts at all levels of government to contain and elim-
inate urban blight have led to increasing use of such
inspection techniques, while numerous decisions of this
Court have more fully defined the Fourth Amendment's
effect on state and municipal action. E. g., Mapp v.
Ohio, 367 >;T. S. 643; Ker v. California, 374 L'. S. 23.
In view of .the growing nationwide importance of the
problem, we noted probable jurisdiction in this case and in
See v. Cily of Seattle, post, p. 541, to re-examine a-hetl-ier
administrative inspection programs, as presently author-
ized and conducted, violate Fourth Amendment rights
as those rights are enforced against the States through
the Fourteenth Amendment. 385 L'. S. 808.
Appellant brought this action in a California Superior
Court alleging that he :vas awaiting trial on a criminal
charge of violating the San Francisco Housing Code by
refusing to permit a warrantless inspection of his resi-
dence, and that a writ of prohibition should issue to the
criminal court because the ordinance authorizing such
inspections is unconstitutional on its face. The Superior
Court denied the writ, the District Court of Appeal
affirmed, and the Supreme Court of California denied a
petition for hearing. Appellant properly raised and had
considered by the California sou*ts the federal constitu-
tional questions he now presents to this Court.
Though there were no judicial findings of fact in this
prohibition proceeding, we shall set forth the parties'
factual allegations. On 1'ovember 6, 1963, an inspector
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160001-9
 526 OCTOBF,R TT Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160001-9 UNICIPAL COURT. 527
of the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Fran-
cisco Department of Public Health entered an apartment
building to make a routine annual inspection for possible
violations of the city's Housing Code.' The building's
manager informed the inspector that appellant, lessee of
the ground floor, vas using the rear of his leasehold as a
personal residence. Claiming that the building's occu-
pancy permit did not allow residential use of the ground
floor, the inspector confronted appellant and demanded
that he permit an inspection of the premises. Appellant
refused to allow the inspection because the inspector
lacked a search warrant.
The inspector returned on \Tovember S, again without
a warrant, and appellant again refused to allow an inspec-
tion. A citation was then mailed ordering appellant to
appear at the district attorney's affice. R'hen appellant
failed to appear, two inspectors returned to his apartment
on \ovember 22. They informed appellant that he was
required by la~v to permit an inspection under ~ 503 of
the Housing Code:
"SeC. 503 RIGHT TO ENTER BL'rLllING. AUthorized
employees of the City departments or City agencies,
so far as may be necessary for the performance of
their duties, shall, upon presentation of proper cre-
dentials, have the right. to enter, at reasonable times,
any building, structure, or premises in the City to
perform any duty imposed upon them by the
Municipal Code."
'The inspection was conducted pursuant to ? b6 (3) of the San
Francisco Municipal Code, which provides that apartment house
operators shall pay an annual license fee in part to defray the cost
of periodic inspections of their buildings. The inspections are to
be made by the Bureau of Housing Inspection "at least once a
year and as often thereafter as may be deemed necessan?." The
permit of occupancy, which prescribes the apartment units which
a building may contain, is not issued until the license is obtained.
Opinion of the Court.
Appellant nevertheless refused the inspectors access to
his apartment ??ithout a search warrant. Thereafter, a
complaint was filed charging 1^iim ~i?ith refusing to permit
a lawful inspection in violation of ? 507 of the Code.?
Appellant was arrested on December 2 and released
on bail. ~'~'hen his demurrer to the criminal complaint
was denied, appellant filed this petition for a writ of
prohibition.
Appellant has argued throughout this litigation that.
5 503 is contrary to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments in that it authorizes municipal officials to enter
a private dwelling without a search warrant and with-
out probable cause to believe that a violation of the
Housing Code exists therein. Consequently, appellant
contends, he may not be prosecuted under S 507 for
refusing to permit an inspection unconstitutionally au-
thorized by ? 503. Relying on Frank v. lliaryland, Eaton
v, Price, and decisions in other States,3 the District
" "Sec. 507 PENn1.TY Foe `'IOLnTIOx. Any person, the owner or
his authorized agent who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects, or
refuses to comply with, or who resists or opposes the execution of
any of the provisions of this Code, or an}- order of the Superin-
tendent, the Director of Public ?orks, or the Director of Public
Health made pursuant to this Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
five hundred dollar; (S500.00), or by imprisonment, not exceeding
six (6) months or by both such fine and. imprisonment, unless
otherwise provided in this Code, and shall he deemed gttiltt? of a
separate offense for every day such violation, disobedience, omission,
neglect or refusal shall continue."
3 Ginner v. ,State, 210 ~1d. 484, 12-1 A. 2d 764 (1956) ; City of
St. Louis v. Evans, 337 S. `~. 2d 948 ('~Zo. 1960) ; State ez rel.
Eaton ~?. Price, 168 Ohio St. 123, 151 N. E. 2d 523 (1958), aff'd
by a.n equally divided Court, 364 U. S. 263 (1960). See also State ~?.
Pees, 258 Iowa 313, 139 N. ~V. 2d 406 11966) ; Corn~nor~u~ealth ,?.
Hadley, 351 Mass. 439, 222 N. E. 2d 681 (1966), appeal docketed
Jan. 5, 1961, Au. 1179, ~Iise., 0. T. 1966; People v. Laverne, 14 N. Y.
2d 304, 200 \. F. 2d 4-11 (1964).
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160001-9
 -_T.__
X28 OCTOBER. T. Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160001-9
TT\TT!'~TT A T !'~l1T TTlT
Opinion of the. Court. 387 U. S.
Court of Appeal held that ~ 503 does not violate Fourth
Amendment rights because it "is part of a regulatory
scheme which is essentially civil rather than criminal
in nature, inasmuch as that section creates a~ right of
inspection which is lituited in scope and may not be exer-
cised under unreasonable conditions." Having concluded
that Frank v. ?Llaryland, to the extent that it sanc-
tioned such n-arrantless inspections, must be overr~,tled,
we reversed
I.
The Fourth Atueiidment provides that, "The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no ?'arrants shall issue, but
upon probable eause. supported by Oath or affirmation.
and particularly describing the place to be searched. and
the persons or things to be seized." The basic purpose
of this Amendment, as recognized in countless decisions
of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security
of individuals against arbitrary invasions by govern-
mental officials. The Fourth Amendment. thus gives con-
crete expression to a right of the people which "is basic
to a free society." iT'olf v. Colorado, 338 L. S. 25, 27.
As such, the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against
the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. her v.
California, 374 t;' . S. 23, 30.
Though there has been general agreement as to the
fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment, trans-
lation of the abstract prohibition against "unreasonable
searches and seizures" into n-orkable guidelines for the
decision of particular cases is a difficult task which has
for many years divided the members of this Court.
Nevertheless, one governing principle, justified by history
and by current experience, has consistently been fol-
lowed: except in certain carefully defined classes cf
cases, a search of private property without proper cort-
sent is "unreasonable" unless it has been authorized
by a valid search warrant. See, e. g., Stoner v. Cali-
f ornia, 37G U. `~. 483 ; United States v. Je f j'ers, 342 U. S.
48; JlcDonal.d v. Z-"nited States, 335 U. S. 451; Agnello
v. United States, 2G9 U. S. 20. As the Court explained
in Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14:
"The right of officers to thrust themselves into a
home is also a grave concern, not only to the indi-
vidual but to a society which chooses to dwell in
reasonable security and freedom from surveillance.