See V. Seattle
From Conservapedia In See v. Seattle (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court limited the use of administrative subpoenas as follows:
| “ | It is now settled that, when an administrative agency subpoenas corporate books or records, the Fourth Amendment requires that the subpoena be sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome. The agency has the right to conduct all reasonable inspections of such documents which are contemplated by statute, but it must delimit the confines of a search by designating the needed documents in a formal subpoena. In addition, while the demand to inspect may be issued by the agency, in the form of an administrative subpoena, it may not be made and enforced by the inspector in the field, and the subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of the reasonableness of the demand prior to suffering penalties for refusing to comply. | ” |
See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 544-45 (1967) (emphasis added). The Court held, over a strong dissent by three Justices (Clark, Harlan and Stewart), that:
| “ | the basic component of a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment -- that it not be enforced without a suitable warrant procedure -- is applicable in this context, as in others, to business as well as to residential premises. Therefore, appellant may not be prosecuted for exercising his constitutional right to insist that the fire inspector obtain a warrant authorizing entry upon appellant's locked warehouse. | ” |
Id. at 546.
The Court concluded its decision as follows:
| “ | We therefore conclude that administrative entry, without consent, upon the portions of commercial premises which are not open to the public may only be compelled through prosecution or physical force within the framework of a warrant procedure. We do not in any way imply that business premises may not reasonably be inspected in many more situations than private homes, nor do we question such accepted regulatory techniques as licensing programs which require inspections prior to operating a business or marketing a product. Any constitutional challenge to such programs can only be resolved, as many have been in the past, on a case-by-case basis under the general Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness. We hold only that the basic component of a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment -- that it not be enforced without a suitable warrant procedure -- is applicable in this context, as in others, to business as well as to residential premises. Therefore, appellant may not be prosecuted for exercising his constitutional right to insist that the fire inspector obtain a warrant authorizing entry upon appellant's locked warehouse. | ” |
Id. at 545-46.
This decision is a leading precedent for limiting the power of administrative subpoenas.
Categories: [United States Supreme Court Cases] [Fourth Amendment]
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 02/24/2023 09:26:40 | 7 views
☰ Source: https://www.conservapedia.com/See_v._Seattle | License: CC BY-SA 3.0
ZWI signed:
ZWI viewer
by the 
KSF
KSF