CAMARA v.

MUNICIPAL COURT (June 5, 1967) Case Digest Recit-ready version An inspector asked to search Camara s premises for possible violation of the Housing Code. Camara refused because there was no warrant. This happened a few more times and he was eventually charged under the Housing Code for refusing to allow the warrantless inspection. He assails the constitutionality of the law. The Court ruled in his favor because routine inspections are not so urgent that they need to be effected without a warrant. This would give the agent unbridled discretion, which may be abused. They also noted that in these types of inspections, probable cause is based on an appraisal of the entire municipal area and not knowledge of the conditions prevalent in one specific structure. Facts An inspector of the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health entered herein appellant s apartment building to do routine annual inspection for possible violations of the Housing Code. The building manager informed the inspector that appellant had been using the rear of his leasehold as personal residence, which the occupancy permit did not allow. Inspector confronted appellant and demanded inspection of the premises, which appellant refused for lack of search warrant. Inspector returned some time later and was again refused. Appellant was then required to appear at the district attorney s office, for which he didn t show. Inspectors again went to his house informing him that he was required to submit to the inspection pursuant to Sec. 503 of the Housing code: Authorized employees , so far as may be necessary for the performance of their duties, shall, have the right to enter, at reasonable times, any premises in the City to perform any duty imposed upon them by the Municipal Code. Appellant still refused without a warrant. He was charged with violation of the Code, arrested and released on bail. His demurrer to the criminal complaint was denied and so this petition for prohibition. Appellant assails the constitutionality of Sec. 503 of the Housing Code for being violative of the 4th and 14th amendments.

Issues & Ratio Violative of the 4th amendment 4th amendment: (like Art. III Sec. 2 Bill of Rights) The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It is enforceable against the States through the 14th amendment.

General rule: Except in certain carefully defined cases, a search of private property without proper consent is unreasonable unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant. Frank v. Maryland (This was the governing doctrine, which the Court, in this case, overturned so it s landmark): y Facts: Appellant refused warrantless search of private premises for the purpose of locating and abating a public nuisance. He was convicted for refusal and the Court upheld it. y Ratio justifications for permitting administrative health and safety inspections without warrant: o Municipal fire, health and housing inspection programs are merely to determine if the premises is complying with the minimum standards set in municipal ordinances and not to search for evidence of criminal action . The 4th amendment interests at stake here are merely peripheral. o They are designed to make the least possible demand on the individual occupant o The warrant process could not function properly in this field Inspections of entire municipal areas are based on broad factors such as the area s age and condition Here s where the Court overturns Under this system, the occupant has no way of knowing what the search is about, what the limits are, and WON the agent is acting upon proper authorization. He must first question the search and risk a criminal conviction for not allowing it. The practical effect is to give the official wide discretion in the field. Fire, housing and sanitation inspections may still be made. What we are disallowing is making them without warrant. There is no evidence that these types of inspection programs cannot achieve their goals within the standards of the warrant process. Thus, warrantless searches of these kinds, like the case at bar, are violative of the 4th amendment. Need for probable cause Unlike searches pursuant to criminal investigation, the purpose of these kinds of warrants is citywide compliance with the minimum physical standards for private property. The governmental interest here is the prevention of conditions, which will become a hazard to public health and safety. The only way to implement this is through routine periodic inspections of all structures. Probable cause then is based on an appraisal of a certain area as a whole. What is required is probable cause arising from knowledge of condition of the district or area, and not necessarily individual buildings. When a warrant must be sought Routine inspections aren t so urgent as to have to take effect immediately without warrant. Furthermore, citizens usually allow routine inspections of their premises anyway even without warrant. It is believed that warrants need only be sought when the citizen has refused the

warrantless search, unless there has been citizen complaints or other compelling reasons to effect immediate entry. Appellant had constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to search and appellant may not be convicted for refusing consent to the inspection.