Court ordered entries to investigate environmental spills and contamination complied with Fourth Amendment

Court ordered entries to investigate environmental spills and contamination at a car dismantler’s property did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Matter of Murtaugh v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 2007 NY Slip Op 6085, 42 A.D.3d 986 (4th Dept. 2007):

Although constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to administrative inspections of private commercial property, those engaged in business in industries subject to a complex and pervasive pattern of regular and close supervision and inspection have a substantially diminished expectation of privacy in such business affairs, and that diminished “privacy interest may, in certain circumstances, be adequately protected by regulatory schemes authorizing warrantless inspections” (Donovan v Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 599, 101 S. Ct. 2534, 69 L. Ed. 2d 262; see generally Marshall v Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313, 98 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed. 2d 305; People v Quackenbush, 88 N.Y.2d 534, 541-542, 670 N.E.2d 434, 647 N.Y.S.2d 150). The dismantling of vehicles is a pervasively regulated industry (see People v Cusumano, 108 A.D.2d 752, 753, 484 N.Y.S.2d 909). Under the statutory scheme, respondents’ entry is in furtherance of the substantial governmental interest in environmental protection and remediation, rather than in furtherance of criminal investigation and prosecution (cf. People v Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474, 498-499, 593 N.E.2d 1328, 583 N.Y.S.2d 920; People v Burger, 67 N.Y.2d 338, 344, 493 N.E.2d 926, 502 N.Y.S.2d 702). Moreover, the statute furnishes ” ‘a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant’ ” by informing the property owner of the prospect of the inspection and limiting the discretion of the inspecting officers (Quackenbush, 88 N.Y.2d at 542). Thus, the owner is informed in advance that the inspections to which he or she is subject do not constitute discretionary acts by a government official but are conducted pursuant to statute. The owner further is informed in advance that the entry will be made only by DEC officials, agents, and contractors, that the entry will be made only in the event of actual or suspected discharges of petroleum or petroleum byproducts onto the lands or into the waters of the State, and that the intrusion will last only until any contamination is remediated. We thus conclude that the Navigation Law provisions do not violate the proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution (see Matter of Crandall v Town of Mentz, 295 A.D.2d 907, 908, 745 N.Y.S.2d 347). We therefore affirm the order in appeal No. 2.

Officer had exigent circumstances to enter defendant’s house to check on a child in need when the caregiver had been hospitalized. Somebody was inside holding a child who refused to come to the door. State v. Burnett, 230 S.W.3d 15 (Mo. App. 2007):

The State contends that Officer Till had information from Capps that raised the suspicion that the child was in immediate need of aid. The State emphasizes that L.N. was last known to be with her father, whose parental rights had been terminated for drug offenses and a substantiated, though uncharged, claim of child sexual abuse. Officer Till saw the silhouette of a person holding an infant or a small child. The attempts of Officer Till and Ms. Capps to contact the occupants were ignored by the occupants of the house. Wineinger, the child’s legal guardian, had surmised that L.N. would be at that residence. These were sufficient to support the reasonable inference that L.N. was within the residence.

Comment: When children are involved in an exigent circumstances claim, a sliding scale is obvious, and this case is an example.

The defendant was in a group standing in an area known for drug sales. Two officers got out of an unmarked car and approached them. The defendant would not look at them, and it became apparent that he had something in his mouth. The officers knew that hiding drugs in the mouth was common, so they could direct the defendant to spit it out. In the Matter Of: I.R.T., 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 1624 (July 17, 2007).*