SEE V. CITY OF SEATTLE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 15, 2011
• Sequence Number: 2
• Content Type: MISC

540 OC'T'OBER TFRA~i ,~~:~: ~~~` --- Y OF SEATTLE. 541
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
Opinion of the Court. 357 U. S.
there has beets a citizelt contplail~t or there is other satis-
factory reason for securing immediate entry. Similarly,
the requirement of a warrant procedure does not sug-
gest any c}tattge in what seems to be the prevailing local
policy, in most situations, of authorizing entry, but not
entry by force, to inspect.
IV.
In this case, appellant has been charged with a crime
for his refusal to permit housing inspectors to enter his
leasehold without a warrant. There was no emergency
demanding immediate access; in fact, the inspectors made
three trips to the building iii an attempt to obtain appel-
lant's consent to search. Yet Ito warrant was obtained
and thus appellant was unable to verify either the need
for or the appropriate limits of the inspection. \o doubt,
the inspectors entered the public portion of the building
with the consent of the landlord, through the building's
manager, but appellee does not contend that such consent
n?as sufficient to authorize inspection of appellant's prem-
ises. Cf. Stoner v. California, 376 L'. S. 483; Chapman. v.
United States, 365 U. S. 610; McDonald v. United States,
335 U. S. 451. Assuming the facts to be as the parties
have alleged, we therefore conclude that appellant had a
constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a
~ti?arrant to search and that appellant may not constitu-
tionally be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspec-
tion. It appears from the opinion of the District Court
of Appeal that under these circumstances a writ of pro-
hibition will issue to the criminal court under California
law.
The judgment is vacated and the case is rentanded for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of N1a. JUSTICE CLARK, see
post, p. 54G. ]
Opinion of the Court.
SEE v..CITY OF SEATTLE.
APPEAL FROAS THE SUPREME COURT OF SVASFIINGTON.
No. 1S0. Argued February 15, 1967 -Decided June 5, 19G7.
A suitable warrant procedure held required by the Fourth Amend-
ment to effect unconsented administrative entry and inspection
of private commercial premises. Cf. Camara v. Diunicipal Court,
ante, p. 523. Pp. 542-54G.
G7 Wash. 2d 475, 40S P. 2d 2G2, reversed.
Norr-Ian Dorsen argued the cause for appellant. With
him on the briefs were Melvin L. Wulf and Marvin ?l1.
Karpatkin.
A. L. Vewbould argued the cause for appellee. `With
him on the brief was Charles S. Rhine.
MR. JUSTICE `~' xITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for refusing
to permit a representative of the City of Seattle Fire
Department to enter and inspect appellant's locked com-
mercial warehouse without a warrant and with out prob-
able cause to believe that a violation of any municipal
ordinance existed therein. The inspection was conducted
as part of a routine, periodic city-wide canvass to obtain
compliance with Seattle's Fire Code. City of Seattle
Ordinance ~'o. 87870, c. 8.01. After he refused the
inspector access, appellant was arrested and charged
with violating i 8.01.050 of the Code:
"INSPECTION OF BUILDING AND PRE~SISES. It shall
be the duty of the Fire Chief to inspect and he may
enter all buikl~ngs and premises, except the mtcriors
of dwellings, as often as may be necessary for the
purpose of ascertaining and causing to be corrected
any conditions iiabie t.o cause fire, or any violations
of the provisions of this Title, and of any other
ordinance concernin ; fire hazards."
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
 542 OCTOBE"Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8 y OF SEATTLE.
Opinion of tiie Court. 387 U. S.
Appellant ??as convicted and given a suspended fine of
X100' despite his claim that ~ 8.01.050. if interpreted to
authorize this warrantless inspection of his warehouse,
would violate his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendtuents. titi'e noted probable jurisdiction and set
this case for argument with Camara v. Ylunicipal Court,
ante, p. 523. 385 U. S. 808. j~'e find the principles enun-
ciated in the Camara. opinion applicable here and
therefore we reverse.
In Camara, we held that the Fourth Amendment bars
prosecution of a person who has refused to permit a
warrantless code-enforcement inspection of his personal
residence. The only question which this ease presents is
??hether Camara applies to similar inspections of com-
mercial structures which are not used as private resi-
dences. The supreme Court of ~t'ashington, in affirming
appellant's conviction, suggested that this Court "has
applied different standards of reasonableness to searches
of dwellings than to places of business," citing Davis v.
United States, 328 L. S. 582. The Washington court
held, and appellee here argues, that ~ 8.01.050, ??hich
excludes "the interiors of dwellings.'' ' establishes a
' Conviction and sentence were pursuant to ? 8.01.140 of the Fim
Code
"PENALTF. Anyone violating or failing to comply n?ith any provi-
sion of this Title or lawful order of the Fire Chief pursuant hereto
shall upon conviction thereof be punishable by a fine not to exceed
Three Hundred Dollars (5300.00), or imprisonment in the City Jail
for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, and each day of violation shall constitute a separate
offense."
~ "Dwelling" is defined in the Code as '?a building occupied ex-
clusively for residential purposes and having not more than two (2)
dwelling units." finch dwelliu~s are subject t~~ the substantive pro-
visions of the Code, but the Fire Chief's right to enter s?~ch premises
is limited to times ?when he has rca=unable cause to believe a ~-io-
lation of the provisions of this Title exists therein." ? ~i.01.040.
This provision also lacks a warrant proc~d~-ire.
Opinion of the Court.
reasonable scheme for the warrantless inspection of
commercial premises pursuant to the Seattle Fire Code.
In Go-Bart I~~zporting Co. v. United States, 282 L~. S.
344; dncos v. t'nited States, 255 L~. S. 313; ar~d ~il`vZ~-=---- -
thorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 L~. 8. 385,.~his ~~
Court refused to uphold otherwise unreasonable criminal
investigative searches merely because commercial rather
than residential premises were the object of the police
intrusions. Likewise, we see no justification for so relax-
ing Fourth Amendment safeguards where the official
inspection is intended to aid enforcement of laws pre-
scribing minimum physical standards for commercial
premises. As we explained in Camara, a search of pri-
vate houses is presumptively unreasonable if conducted
without a warrant. The busitessman, like the occupant
of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his
business free from unreasonable official entries upon his
private commercial property. The businessman, too, has
that right placed in jeopardy if the decision to enter and
inspect for violation of regulatory laws can be made and
enforced by the inspector in the field without official
authority evidenced by a warrant.
As governmental regulation of business enterprise has
mushroomed in recent years, the need for effective in-
vestigative techniques to achieve the aims of such regu-
lation has been the subject of substantial comment and
legislation.' Official entry upon commercial property
s See Antitrust Cicil Process Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 548, 15 U. S. C.
~ ~ 1311-1314 ; H. R. Rep. ti o. 708, 83d Cong.; 1st Bess. (1953) (re-
porting the "factory inspection" amendments to the Federal Food,
Dnig, and Cosmetic Act, 67 8tat. 476, 31 L'. S. C. ? 374) ; Davis,
The Administrative Polver of Investigation, 56 Pale L. J. 1111;
Handler, The Constitutionality of Investigations by the Federal
Trade Commission, I S II, 23 Col. L. Rev. 703, 905; fichwarta,
Cn~ciai Areas in Administrative Law, 34 Gea. mash. I,. Rev. 401;
-I2~~i0: \ote, Constitutional Aspects of Federal T.+.s Investigatiors,
57 Col. L. Rev. 676.
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
 Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
,? ~ ~ ~
oa o w ~ p G. s ~.-i
^~i O' ~ h ~ W a' ~:
_ ~ ~ v ~0? a
CD
O ~
C
~ n
~ O
~ O
~ ~
F~ :r
O ~"'
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~y ~ CrJ
~ ~
e-' ~
O
y ~ `~ ~ C O
cD .. rn ~..~ C 'C7 fD
T
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~.
C O
ry 'd O' fD
'LY ~ cD O ro
O ~ '?' ~ n
O u ~ `~'
C `rr ~, y O /~ r,J
O O C '~ .~ O C
-' ~ O
~ Oq~ O ry O m ~
~ e-' Q' ~ O
fD FJ ._
!-s-' O r' n ,.~ rn rte.
G O n hj ~.
n C ."'~ ~ O ..t
c+ p~ n C P~
~. `C ~ ~'
~ r'i ~ W Ui ~+-,
c-' t-f C ~ ~ `Y C r+ P~ O
~' b ~ ~`~- A ? C ~ ~ ~ rr~o t7Q
~ C C0.., ~ m ran ~ T ~
C G1. " C . ~ (9 n ~ Q. ~-e C O ~ .
~. ~ co .. ~ .,. v ~ O ~:
c-r C ~- ~ "9 O ~ f7 i-+ O
~`.' ~' ~ `~. `'r k~ r C G O
cD rp C.. ~ n ~ ti ~ `O ".. m
in~ C ~ ~' ~ ~ .y O O O
~ ?? ~ co cv m ~ ~
~ ~ hq ~ O "O p~ ~ ti
O e+ ~ n. P~ O O ~ .a ''1~
~ ~ . O co O .-. p ~ cD ~
cD ,~ O Gl. .+~, ro ti ~ Ci. ~
O ~ ~
O -
~. A ~.
~ ~
O ~
~ ~ ~
~ ci, ~
~ s~.. ~ c~
C ~' ~
(D (D ~J ~_
O
QQ
~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ C C
Q. ro co m
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
r.
.., O
'~' fy :-!
rr ,fir f7
p.. b
~ ? -'
0
o~
~,
O
?
~
~.
W
~
~'
,
~
r. ~s
~
A~
~.
O
~
C
f~
~
.7' (D
N ~
(7
lD
l~D
~,'
'
ti o
m
m
~
~
o
o
..y
C ?Y
O
O
C
C
.-.
C
~ 'i~' "
to
O
fD
(~D ~ (D
.; ~
rD
f7
co ~
..,
.nom.
'_.. rn O
~ ._
O
 Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
~ ~.
~ rn
~ r+ ~ ~
n ~ ~ r. ~
~? ~ a ~~ ~
~ ~ a- ~-. o
~~c~ ~ a
._ n rm ~
.7;, rD v v ~
(D ~ ~ ~ in
~ a" ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
a' ~ _? ~ cD
m CD ~ ~ ~7
fD ran `Y
O .y :~' p r
a
~ ~ ~ r- ~ 7
cC V~ cD O
m A~ "'~
~ ~
(D ~'
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~.
Q. ~
a. ~ ~ o o ~ o ~? ~
m o ~ -~ `~
o ~C ~'C ~?O.."o'v
y ~ a.~ ~ ~ o
rte. ?
~ ~ V ~? ~? ~
cfl ~ `C ~ ~ aQ
~ ~ ~ ~ ~? ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ c~ ~
~ a' e~
~ T O O
;~? ~ ~ ~
u, ~ p.
~ ~ ~
Ua ~ n' ~ `~ ~n...
~- Q, ~ ... ... c~ ~ ~+
~ o a~ 'C ~ ~ ~ `C
m ~ ~~ cfl ~ ~ '~' ~
Cl. ~ b '"~ ~+ ~
Z7' c~ ~ -s
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
~1. ]-'
~' e~
CCS
0
~~~
u~
ti
c~
.d
b
~
~ y
?
~,
~
~ ~
~
O
C
~
r
c-; .y.
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~ M
~
~ ~
~
A
o
~ r
'
ro
-~'
~
~ ~
~;
~
z
~
~ ~
ry
'~'~
~.
C
i
~
<
~_. ~
~ ~
~
p
~
~
p
v'
Vi
.ry
~+
C
~
~
~
~
_
~ ~
^~
~
.
~ ti
.
~
-.
 Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
7 O r~+ G-` . .2 rOi~
.-~
,; c ~.. _
a n.. ~ o
~ U .7 rti ~l ~ ~ rJ
G..:? 'O O O ~ cu O-
~ ,3
CD
A'+ O
O C
~-r
~ ='~.
~ ~
L1 %~
,; ~ ti c ~ ~ d' y co ~
~ ~ ~ :T' ~ ~, ``~ O ~ U c9 cD cu C
F~ ro "~ c+ 79 O cD C' ~, ~ ~ t7' ~ ~ F~ ?v
m 7 rn ~ C p.. ~ n `" v' Q. d '~ cD uGi C`~.' ~ ~ n
t~ a" p.. ~ ~ ry ~' ~ b p v' cD ~ ~ .may ``' ,~~
? `C ~ ~ cD ~ ~ 'CS .~ cc c~ cfl
Q' ~ ~ u, ^~ '~ ~ cp 57 n C c9 `rC ~ ~ ~
o~.. ~ ~ o o ~~ o p ~' ,~ w o ~ h o- ~ ~ v,
c
? o r. ~ , ~v ~ n. ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ 'o ~ ry ~,.
~ ~ ~ y
rn ~D `Y ~ S' p: rr.'. p?, O ~/: ~ O ~?~ p~ Q.. u~ O m' --,
C~ 1~.. O A~ ~ M G J b'~G7" uroi .`3 C N' `C
ran f~ ~ e. .C Q. p ~ '.'' !y ,-. ~ ~ ~ `" ~ cD ~ rn
C?' ..y `~ ~' t`"j n ~ c?' (D u ~1 ~ ^ fJq .`7" Cam{ ~ ~.~,,~ `~T'
~ ~ y rD ~ ~ ~ Uj YJ ~ 1 e-. e-f 0 to
fv _ "O rn
D
C .~ ?
.,.. ~ ~
~ ~ C cD ~ _~
_ C ~ ' '''
~ ~
.`~.. m O.
O
C " ^y
~, ~ m
~, O ~_ ~-
rD " n
-n v
't3
y c., C ..
O C ,~. ~
F~J R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~^. n ,~, :~. O
~, ~.
0
0
Approved For Release 2011/08/15 :CIA-RDP05C01629R000100160002-8
~ C
rD
~- cu .- ~
cD '~O-.,
~ ~ ,, y
~ ~ o
in ~ n r9 ~
? O '7 ~
c-r-
n ~ p
e~?a. iD tOn
m e?r (D C