Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.

PETITIONER: Marshall
RESPONDENT: Barlow's, Inc.
LOCATION: Department of Social Services of the City of New York

DOCKET NO.: 76-1143
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 436 US 307 (1978)
ARGUED: Jan 09, 1978
DECIDED: May 23, 1978

ADVOCATES:
John L. Runft - for appellee
McCree Jr. -

Facts of the case

p>On September 11, 1975, a controller of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) came to Barlow`s, Inc. that dealt with electrical and plumbing equipment. The controller demanded Bill Barlow, the president and general chief, for permission to visit the non-public premises to exercise the examination. He explained it that their company was chosen to be inspected as scheduled in accordance with OSHA`s general inspection plan. The president asked for a warrant to conduct these actions, but the inspector didn`t have it. Then he didn`t allow to the controller to enter in that places arguing that the Fourth Amendment protection of the unauthorized seizure and search. Three months after this accident the Secretary of OSHA filed a claim to the District Court of Idaho demanding to uphold the order to request the director to allow the inspector to premises.

The district court issued the permission, therefore the controller showed it to Barlow requesting the entering. However, the director refused to enter and claimed to prohibit the inspections conducted by OSHA that was named as case Barlow. The court confirmed the position of appellant, stating that this order was unconstitutional. But the Secretary filed the appellation, that was handed out by the Supreme Court of the USA and was so-called Marshall case.

The Court upheld its opinion that the Fourth Amendment applied to this case as it defined that any warrants based on the unproven grounds of the searches could not authorize its conduction. The case study of Marshall vs Barlow finds that besides the exception of the authorized warrant on the search of buildings of the similarly governed industries could not be applied because of that the company referred to interstate trade.

The judges confirmed that the warrant could be issued under the facts of the breach, but it should ensure the examination has the reasonable grounds in accordance with the Constitution. Moreover, the judgement established so-called Barlow's test under which the warrant would determine some limits, scope and objects of the search.

Hence, the Court entitled the company representative with the declaratory decision that this order was outlawed as it attempted to legalize the examinations with the invalid warrant that contradicted with the constitutional guarantees.

Question

Media for Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 09, 1978 in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - May 23, 1978 in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Justice White has opinions in two cases to announce.

Byron R. White:

First of these cases is Marshall, Secretary of Labor against Barlow's Inc.

The Section 8 (a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act purports to authorize the inspection of most of the covered, of all the covered business establishments without a warrant and without probable cause to believe that there is a violation of the Act.

A three-judge District Court for the district of Idaho concluded that in this respect the Act was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and the Secretary brought the case here by appeal.

We agree with the District Court that for all intents and purposes the issue is controlled by two cases decided in this Court a few years ago, Camara against Municipal Court and See against Seattle and as construed and applied in those cases, the Fourth Amendment as we have concluded, forbids the kinds of searches of that this Act purports to authorize.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

And Mr. Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion, and he is joined by Justices Blackmun and Rehnquist.

Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the decision or consideration of the case.