New York v. Burger

The warrantless search of an automobile junkyard, conducted pursuant to a statute authorizing such a search, may fall within the exception to the warrant requirement. A business owner’s expectation of privacy in commercial property is reduced with respect to commercial property employed in a “closely regulated” industry. Where the owner’s privacy interest is weakened and the government’s interest in regulating particular businesses is heightened, a warrantless inspection of commercial premises is reasonable. This warrantless inspection, even in the context of a pervasively regulated business, will be deemed to be reasonable only so long as three criteria are met:

1) There must be a “substantial” government interest. Because of the auto theft problem, the state has a substantial interest in regulating the auto dismantling industry.

2) The warrantless inspections must be “necessary to further [the] regulatory scheme.”

3) The statute’s inspection program, in terms of certainty and regularity of its application, must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.

The Court found that this statute provided a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. It informed a business operator that regular inspections will be made, and also sets forth the scope of the inspection, notifying him of how to comply with the statute and who is authorized to conduct the inspection. However, the time, place, and scope of the inspection is limited to impose appropriate restraints upon the inspecting officers’ discretion. The administrative scheme is not unconstitutional simply because, in the course of enforcing it, an inspecting officer may discover evidence of crimes, in addition to violations of regulations.also sets forth the scope of the inspection, notifying him of how to comply with the statute and who is authorized to conduct the inspection. However, the time, place, and scope of the inspection is limited to impose appropriate restraints upon the inspecting officers’ discretion. The administrative scheme is not unconstitutional simply because, in the course of enforcing it, an inspecting officer may discover evidence of crimes, in addition to violations of regulations.