{"id":4969,"date":"2011-01-08T09:41:49","date_gmt":"2010-12-07T05:46:53","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-12-07T05:46:53","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4969","title":{"rendered":"AK: Civil inspection of property order complied with Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a nuisance civil case, a discovery order under <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.alaska.gov\/civ.htm#34\">Alaska Civil Rule 34<\/a> [similar to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/rules\/frcp\/Rule34.htm\">F.R.C.P. 34<\/a>] required plaintiff to submit to an inspection for hazardous materials. The order was narrowly tailored to protect privacy interests, including the Fourth Amendment. <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.alaska.gov\/ops\/sp-6526.pdf\">Whittle v. Weber<\/a>, 243 P.3d 208 (Alaska 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Other jurisdictions have used similar balancing tests and considered similar factors when reviewing discovery requests for entry onto private property. Overall, to determine whether an inspection is appropriate, courts \u201cmust balance the respective interests by weighing the degree to which the proposed inspection will aid in the search for truth against the burdens and dangers created by the inspection.\u201d17 Most courts focus on the second <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16358622892438918969&amp;q=jones++v.+jennings&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Jones [v. Jennings]<\/a> factor: the \u201ccompelling interest\u201d element. To determine whether a compelling interest exists, courts scrutinize the relevance of the proposed inspection to the issue in the legal action. The Kentucky Supreme Court, looking to federal courts\u2019 practices, observed that \u201c[i]n each case, the place to be inspected is somehow \u2018at issue\u2019 in the underlying law suit.\u201d18 Thus, other jurisdictions have concluded that the property or item to be inspected must be directly connected with the main issue of the legal action; some have determined that this \u201cnexus\u201d must appear on the face of the discovery order.19 Besides focusing on the nexus between the location and the legal cause of action, courts may also consider additional factors that connect the inspection to the lawsuit; for example, whether a legal action has begun,20 or whether the inspection is necessary (<em>i.e.,<\/em> the information cannot be obtained through other avenues).21<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>17 Welzel v. Bernstein, 233 F.R.D. 185, 186 (D.D.C. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also DUSA Pharms., Inc. v. New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 153, 154 (D. Mass. 2005) (denying motion to compel inspection where \u201cany benefit from the inspection &#8230; is outweighed by the burdens that such inspection will impose\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>18 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinson, 29 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Ky. 2000); see also Belcher v. Basset Furniture Industrs., Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 910 (4th Cir. 1978) (\u201cMost cases involving on-site inspections concern a given object on the premises which is the subject matter of the action &#8230;.\u201d); Welzel, 233 F.R.D. at 186 (\u201cIn cases in which a site inspection has been allowed, the rationale has often been because the specific location relates to the subject matter of the cause of action.\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>19 See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 29 S.W.3d at 802 (requiring a \u201cnexus between the premises to be inspected and the underlying cause of action\u201d and that \u201cthis nexus must appear on the face of the order\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>20 See, e.g., Lake Charles Harbor &amp; Terminal Dist. v. Phoenix Dev. Co., 624 So. 2d 972, 974 (La. App. 1993) (holding that trial court lacked authority to allow entry on land before suit was filed).<\/p>\n<p>21 See, e.g., DUSA Pharms., 232 F.R.D. at 154 (denying motion to compel entry where \u201cthe defendant [had] offered plaintiffs access to its premises under reasonable terms\u201d and \u201calternative and reasonably adequate methods of discovery\u201d were available).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4969\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}