30.06.2014 Views

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> section has been held to be constitutional. (People v. Calvert<br />

(1993) 18 Cal.App.4 th 1820, 1831-1834; People v. Woolsey (1979)<br />

90 Cal.App.3 rd 994, 1001-1002; Sol<strong>and</strong>er v. Municipal Court<br />

(1975) 45 Cal.App.3 rd 664, 667.)<br />

Such a warrantless “search” is justified as an administrative search<br />

of a “closely regulated business,” <strong>and</strong> must be done in a reasonable<br />

manner. (People v. Potter (2005) 128 Cal.App.4 th 611; see also<br />

People v. Lopez (1981) 116 Cal.App.3 rd 600.) (See “Closely<br />

Regulated Businesses or Activities,” under “Warrantless<br />

Searches,” above.)<br />

“<strong>The</strong> regulatory scheme authorizing warrantless inspections<br />

must meet three requirements: (1) the scheme must serve a<br />

substantial government interest; (2) the warrantless<br />

inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory<br />

scheme; <strong>and</strong> (3) the inspection program “must perform the<br />

two basic functions of a warrant: it must advise the owner<br />

of the commercial premises that the search is being made<br />

pursuant to the law <strong>and</strong> has a properly defined scope, <strong>and</strong> it<br />

must limit the discretion of the inspecting officers.” (Id., at<br />

p. 619; citing (New York v. Burger (1987) 482 U.S. 691,<br />

702-703 [96 L.Ed.2 nd 601].)<br />

However, see People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 182,<br />

where V.C. § 2805 was cited by the California Supreme<br />

Court as authority for an officer to check an already<br />

lawfully stopped vehicle, in an other-than-commercial<br />

context, for its registration.<br />

Non-commercial property: Section 2805 does not authorize the<br />

warrantless search of property not being used for commercial<br />

purposes or otherwise open to the public. (People v. Roman<br />

(1991) 227 Cal.App.3 rd 674; People v. Calvert, supra, at pp. 1828-<br />

1829.)<br />

Use of Force: And should the owner/occupant of the business<br />

refuse, he or she is subject to arrest, however, forcible entry of the<br />

business is not lawful. An administrative search warrant should be<br />

obtained. (See People v. Woolsey, supra, at p. 1004; (Colonade<br />

Catering Corp. v. v. United States (1970) 397 U.S. 72, 74 [25<br />

L.Ed.2 nd 60].))<br />

© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved<br />

530

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!