PA: Funeral homes are in a closely regulated industry, and warrantless inspection scheme does not violate the Fourth Amendment

Pennsylvania funeral homes are in a closely regulated industry, and warrantless inspection scheme does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Heffner v. Murphy, 745 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2014):

The funeral “industry” in Pennsylvania is clearly subjected to extensive regulations. The FDL and its supporting regulations prescribe a broad range of standards that funeral directors in Pennsylvania have long been required to comply with. These include licensing requirements, health standards, and funeral services that funeral homes must provide. See, e.g., 63 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 479.6 (issuance of licenses), 479.7 (health restrictions); see also Guardian Plans v. Teague, 870 F.2d 123, 126 (4th Cir. 1989) (describing similar requirements governing funeral service professionals in Virginia as “extensive”); Toms v. Bureau of Prof’l and Occupational Affairs, 800 A.2d 342, 349 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (“The [FDL] … impose[s] rules and restrictions on funeral directors not only to protect the bereaved …, but also to provide a framework with which to help the bereaved address each of the issues that arise when making final arrangements for a deceased loved one.”). The funeral industry is also subject to significant federal regulation. Not only does the Federal Trade Commission require funeral homes to disclose pricing information prior to all transactions, see 16 C.F.R. 453.2, funeral establishments must also comply with several health and safety standards imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, see, e.g., 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030 (Blood borne Pathogen Standard).

Since we have no difficulty concluding that Pennsylvania’s funeral industry is a “closely regulated industry,” our Burger inquiry proceeds to determining if the searches authorized by the FDL are reasonable. Free Speech Coal., Inc., 677 F.3d at 544 (“Once a business is determined to be part of a closely regulated industry, then we must decide whether the alleged warrantless search was reasonable.”). That inquiry requires us to focus on three criteria:

First, there must be a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made. … Second, the warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme. … Finally, the statute’s inspection program … must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.

Burger, 482 U.S. at 702-03 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Free Speech Coal., Inc., 677 F.3d at 544.

The Plaintiffs argue that the searches authorized by the FDL are not supported by a sufficient governmental interest to withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny under Burger. However, Pennsylvania obviously has a substantial interest in public health, safety, and consumer protection. ….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.