 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] People v. Ventura5/6/2004
sonable government invasions of privacy. See Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. at 273-274 (opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan)."
In See, Mr. Justice White again wrote the Majority's opinion holding:
"The agency's particular demand for access will of course be measured, in terms of probable cause to issue a warrant, against a flexible standard of reasonableness that takes into account the public need for effective enforcement of the particular regulation involved."
Mr. Justice Clark, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart joined, dissented sharply criticizing the Majority's holdings in Camara and See. Mr. Justice Clark wrote:
"But this is not all. It prostitutes the command of the Fourth Amendment that 'no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause' and sets up in the health and safety codes area inspection a new-fangled 'warrant' system that is entirely foreign to Fourth Amendment standards. It is regrettable that the Court wipes out such a long and widely accepted practice and creates in its place such enormous confusion in all of our towns and metropolitan cities in one fell swoop. I dissent."
". . .As I read it, the Fourth Amendment guarantee of individual privacy is, by its language, specifically qualified. It prohibits only those searches that are 'unreasonable.' The majority seem to recognize this for they set up a new test for the long-recognized and enforced Fourth Amendment's 'probable cause' requirement for the issuance of warrants. They would permit the issuance of paper warrants, in area inspection programs, with probable cause based on area inspection standards as set out in municipal codes, and with warrants issued by the rubber stamp of a willing magistrate. In my view, this degrades the Fourth Amendment."
". . .With due respect, inspections of this type have been made for over a century and a half without warrants and it is a little late to impose a death sentence on such procedures now. In most instances the officer could not secure a warrant such as in See's case thereby insulating large and important segments of our cities from inspection for health and safety conditions. It is this situation which is even recognized by the Court that should give us pause."
". . .Fire code violations also often cause many conflagrations. Indeed, if the fire inspection attempted in District of Columbia v. Little, 339 U.S. 1 (1950),had been permitted a two-year-old's death resulting from a fire that gutted the home involved there on August 6, 1949, might well have been prevented."
". . .We should remember the admonition of Mr. Justice Douglas in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32 (1954):
'Miserable and disreputable housing conditions may do more than spread disease and crime and immorality. They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing the people who live there to the status of cattle. They may indeed make living an almost insufferable burden.'
". . . Homeowners generally try to minimize maintenance costs and some landlords make needed repairs only when required to do so."
In his learned treatise on Criminal Procedure (see West Publishing Co. Hornbook Series, 1979, § 3.9 Inspections and Regulatory Searches) Professor LaFave commented on the Camara and See holdings as follows:
"(a) General Considerations. In the discussion which follows, the concern is with a variety of rather special search practices which are commonly described either as 'inspections' or as 'regulatory searches.' These practices are directed toward certain unique problems unlike those ordinarily confronted by police officers in their day-to-day investigative and enforcement activiti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 New York DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|