{ "id": 8553429, "name": "JOHN C. BROOKS, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner v. TAYLOR TOBACCO ENTERPRISES, INC., and GEORGE RONALD TAYLOR, Respondents", "name_abbreviation": "Brooks v. Taylor Tobacco Enterprises, Inc.", "decision_date": "1979-02-06", "docket_number": "No. 7813SC691", "first_page": "529", "last_page": "538", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "39 N.C. App. 529" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.C. App. 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550950 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/15/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 U.S.C. \u00a7 657", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(f)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Or. App. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or. App.", "case_ids": [ 6035346 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or-app/31/[291]-01" ] }, { "cite": "387 U.S. 523", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11338823 ], "weight": 10, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "539" }, { "page": "1736" }, { "page": "941" }, { "page": "538" }, { "page": "1735" }, { "page": "940" }, { "page": "538" }, { "page": "1736" }, { "page": "941" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/387/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6176124 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "7-8" }, { "page": "2481" }, { "page": "546" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/433/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 U.S. 307", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1490680 ], "weight": 17, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311" }, { "page": "1820" }, { "page": "310" }, { "page": "323" }, { "page": "1825-26" }, { "page": "317-18" }, { "page": "320-21" }, { "page": "1824-25" }, { "page": "316" }, { "page": "320" }, { "page": "1824" }, { "page": "316" }, { "page": "323, n. 20" }, { "page": "1826" }, { "page": "318" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/436/0307-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 762, "char_count": 20616, "ocr_confidence": 0.78, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4928453280122937e-07, "percentile": 0.8087203153542929 }, "sha256": "045ca632d58aeee6a0a0b36a28658a9e1303aeafa2a7bff5ec77b37f964caef1", "simhash": "1:7526652b15133f84", "word_count": 3222 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:00.834910+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "JOHN C. BROOKS, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner v. TAYLOR TOBACCO ENTERPRISES, INC., and GEORGE RONALD TAYLOR, Respondents" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nRespondents first contend that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings because \u201cthe Administrative Inspection Warrant is unconstitutional on its face.\u201d\nArt. I, \u00a7 20 of the North Carolina Constitution is as follows:\nGeneral warrants, whereby an officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.\nRespondent argues that the \u201cAdministrative Inspection Warrant herein is the type envisioned by drafters of Article I, Section 20, and the type of warrant proscribed.\u201d We disagree.\nArticle I, \u00a7 20 proscribes warrants that empower officials to search for evidence of a particular offense without specifically naming the person against whom the offense is charged, the particular place to be searched or the items to be seized. \u201cThe general warrant was a recurring point of contention in the colonies immediately preceding the Revolution. The particular offensiveness it engendered was acutely felt by the merchants and businessmen whose premises and products were inspected for compliance with the several Parliamentary revenue measures that most irritated the colonists.\u201d Marshall v. Barlow\u2019s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 311, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1820, 56 L.Ed. 2d 305, 310 (1978). Consequently, the constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures \u201cgrew in large measure out of the colonists\u2019 experience with the writs of assistance and their memories of the general warrants formerly in use in England. These writs, which were issued on executive rather than judicial authority, granted sweeping power to customs officials and other agents of the King to search at large for smuggled goods.\u201d United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 7-8, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2481, 53 L.Ed. 2d 538, 546 (1977). The general warrant commanded the officers to search for persons who had committed an offense; because only the offense was named and not the offender, and since no evidence that the crime had been committed was required, this empowered the officers to search, in their discretion, any place they wished. 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, Ch. X, at p. 612-15 (8th ed. 1927). It is this \u201calmost unbridled discretion [of] executive and administrative officers, particularly those in the field, as to when to search and whom to search\u201d that the warrant requirements are intended to check. Marshall v. Barlow\u2019s, Inc., 436 U.S. at 323, 98 S.Ct. at 1825-26, 56 L.Ed. 2d at 317-18.\nA warrant to conduct an administrative inspection issued pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2 could in no sense be considered a general warrant. While G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c)(l) sets forth standards for issuance of an administrative search warrant which are less stringent than the probable cause standards required in the criminal law sense under G.S. \u00a7 15A-246, as hereinafter discussed, these standards are certainly sufficient \u201cto guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest.\u201d Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 539, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1736, 18 L.Ed. 2d 930, 941 (1967). See also, State, ex rel. Accident Prevention Div. v. Foster, 31 Or. App. 291, 570 P. 2d 398 (1977). G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 15-27.2(c)(2) and (3) require the applicant to provide signed affidavits and the issuing official to examine the affiant to verify the accuracy of the matters in the affidavit. Under G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(d)(2) the warrant must accurately and specifically describe the property sought to be inspected. G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(d)(3) requires that the warrant \u201cindicate the conditions, objects, activities or circumstances which the inspection is intended to check or reveal.\u201d Finally, G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(f) codifies an \u201cexclusionary rule\u201d whereby any facts or evidence obtained through the use of an invalid warrant may not be considered in imposing any civil, criminal, or administrative sanctions, nor used to obtain another warrant.\nFrom the foregoing, it is clear that the statutory scheme for obtaining a warrant to conduct an administrative inspection, when complied with, provides ample protections against the constitutional proscription of general warrants.\nRespondents next contend that the first clause of G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c)(l) is unconstitutionally \u201cvoid for vagueness.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c) is as follows:\nThe issuing officer shall issue the warrant when he is satisfied the following conditions are met:\n(1) The one seeking the warrant must establish under oath or affirmation that the property to be searched or inspected is to be searched or inspected as part of a legally authorized program of inspection which naturally includes that property, or that there is probable cause for believing that there is a condition, object, activity, or circumstance which legally justifies such a search or inspection of that property;\n(2) An affidavit indicating the basis for the establishment of one of the grounds described in (1) above must be signed under oath or affirmation by the af-fiant;\n(3) The issuing official must examine the affiant under oath or affirmation to verify the accuracy of the matters indicated by the statement in the affidavit.\nRespondents argue that the language contained in the statute, specifically \u201cwhich naturally includes that property\u201d is \u201cunclear, general, and broad.\u201d They also argue that what is \u201clegally authorized\u201d under the statutory provisions \u201cis virtually impossible for the issuing judicial officer to determine.\u201d Finally, they contend that allowing inspection of a business as \u201cpart of a legally authorized program of inspection\u201d is inadequate to meet constitutional standards of specificity.\nWe believe that respondents\u2019 argument reflects a misunderstanding of the considerations which lie at the core of the less stringent probable cause requirements for obtaining administrative inspection warrants. The North Carolina statute authorizes the judicial officer to issue an administrative search warrant after making an independent determination that one of two standards has been met. The first is that the target property \u201cis to be searched or inspected as part of a legally authorized program of inspection which naturally includes that property.\u201d The second is that there is \u201cprobable cause\u201d justifying an administrative inspection.\nIn Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, the United States Supreme Court, in explaining the requirements for obtaining a warrant to inspect private dwellings for violations of a municipal health code, held that \u201cwhere considerations of health and safety are involved, the facts that would justify an inference of \u2018probable cause\u2019 to make an inspection are clearly different from those that would justify such an inference where a criminal investigation has been undertaken.\u201d 387 U.S. at 538, 87 S.Ct. at 1735, 18 L.Ed. 2d at 940. In Marshall v. Barlow\u2019s, Inc., supra, the Court had occasion to explain more specifically the less stringent probable cause standard for obtaining an administrative warrant in the context of an OSHA inspection.\nWe think the following language from the Barlow\u2019s opinion is applicable in interpreting the two standards contained in G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c)(l):\n[An OSHA agent\u2019s] entitlement to inspect will not depend on his demonstrating probable cause to believe that conditions in violation of OSHA exist on the premises. Probable cause in the criminal law sense is not required. For purposes of an administrative search such as this, probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant may be based not only on specific evidence of an existing violation but also on a showing that \u201creasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an . . . inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular [establishment].\u201d Camara v. Municipal Court, [387 U.S. at 538, 87 S.Ct. at 1736, 18 L.Ed. 2d at 941.] A warrant showing that a specific business has been chosen for an OSHA search on the basis of a general administrative plan for the enforcement of the Act derived from neutral sources such as, for example, dispersion of employees in various types of industries across a given area, and the desired frequency of searches in any of the lesser divisions of the area, would protect an employer\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights.\n436 U.S. at 320-21, 98 S.Ct. at 1824-25, 56 L.Ed. 2d at 316.\nBased on the above, we are of the opinion that the \u201cprogram of inspection\u201d test under the North Carolina statute in substance uses the same criteria described in the Camara opinion. It requires the agent seeking the warrant to provide facts in an affidavit showing that a particular business has been selected for inspection \u201cpursuant to an administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria.\u201d Id. The affidavit to support issuance of a warrant under this standard must contain an adequate description of the \u201cgeneral administrative plan,\u201d the \u201cspecific neutral criteria\u201d used to determine which businesses will be inspected under the plan, and facts showing why the particular business sought to be inspected comes within the plan.\nThe second standard for obtaining a warrant under G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c)(l), the \u201cprobable cause\u201d test, is also definable by reference to the Camara and Barlow\u2019s opinions. The Supreme Court in Barlow\u2019s noted that under the federal act, employees or their representatives could give written notice to the Secretary of the Department of Labor of what they believed to be violations of safety regulations and could request an inspection. See, 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 657(f)(1). Corresponding provisions in the North Carolina statute, G.S. \u00a7 95-130(6), (7), (8), and (9), give employees similar rights and afford them protection from discharge or discrimination if they have \u201cfiled any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding or inspection\u201d under the provisions of the statute. Consequently, the \u201cprobable cause\u201d standard permits an OSHA agent to obtain a warrant where he has \u201cspecific evidence\u201d in an affidavit showing that \u201cconditions in violation of OSHA exist on the premises.\u201d Marshall v. Barlow\u2019s, Inc., 436 U.S. at 320, 98 S.Ct. at 1824, 56 L.Ed. 2d at 316.\nHaving thus determined that the statute is not unconstitutionally \u201cvoid for vagueness,\u201d we next proceed to consider respondents\u2019 contention that it was \u201cunconstitutionally applied\u201d in the present case.\nWe first note that the warrant that was issued stated in part \u201c[T]he applicant . . . being duly sworn, has stated to me that the property described in the attached affidavit is to be inspected as part of a legally authorized program of inspection which naturally includes that property.\u201d Such conclusory allegations by the af-fiant, which are nothing more than a perfunctory restatement of the statutory language contained in G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c)(l), are clearly insufficient to meet the statutory requirements. The Supreme Court in Barlow\u2019s rejected a similar attempt to show probable cause, stating:\nThe application for the inspection order . . . represented that \u201cthe desired inspection and investigation are contemplated as part of an inspection program designed to assure compliance with the Act . . .\u201d The program was not described, however, or any facts presented that would indicate why an inspection of Barlow\u2019s establishment was within the program.\nId. at 323, n. 20, 98 S.Ct. at 1826, 56 L.Ed. 2d at 318.\nIn the present case, however, we think that the warrant authorizing the present search, although inartfully drafted, coupled with the supporting affidavits are sufficient to meet minimal standards under the \u201cprogram of inspection\u201d test set out in G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c)(1). We think the rule that the sufficiency of a search warrant should properly be determined with reference to the supporting affidavits, see State v. Murphy, 15 N.C. App. 420, 190 S.E. 2d 361 (1972), is also applicable in the context of administrative inspection warrants.\nThe supporting affidavits contained sufficient facts to enable the issuing officer to make an independent determination that the Department of Labor had developed a plan for enforcement of the Act which used neutral criteria in selecting particular businesses to be inspected. Facts were included in the affidavits indicating why Taylor Tobacco Enterprises fell within this general plan or program of inspection. For example, some of the facts contained in the affidavit are that Taylor had never been inspected, it was engaged in a high hazard industry according to a standard industrial classification code, and it involved the use of various types of machinery. In holding that the affidavits are sufficient under the \u201cprogram of inspection\u201d test set out in G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(c)(l), we further note that the State\u2019s attempt to show through statistics that an inspection of the business would be likely to reveal OSHA violations is not sufficient to meet the \u201cprobable cause\u201d test under the statute.\nRespondents\u2019 final contention is that the warrant in the present case does not comply with G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(d)(3) in that it fails to \u201cindicate the conditions, objects, activities or circumstances which the inspection is intended to check or reveal.\u201d As previously noted, the sufficiency of an administrative inspection warrant should properly be determined with reference to its supporting affidavits. See State v. Murphy, supra. In fact, G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(d)(2) provides that the warrant \u201cmust describe, either directly or by reference to the affidavit, the property where the search or inspection is to occur . . . .\u201d (Emphasis supplied.) Thus while the warrant in the present case does not specifically indicate the objects of the inspection, the affidavits set out in great detail various objects and conditions that the \u201cinspection is intended to check or reveal,\u201d and we hold that it is sufficient to meet the provisions of the statute.\nThe Order appealed from is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney George W. Lennon, for petitioner appellee.", "Paderick, Warrick & Johnson, by Dale P. Johnson, for respondent appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN C. BROOKS, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner v. TAYLOR TOBACCO ENTERPRISES, INC., and GEORGE RONALD TAYLOR, Respondents\nNo. 7813SC691\n(Filed 6 February 1979)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 21; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 1\u2014 administrative inspection warrant \u2014 no general warrant\nAn administrative inspection warrant issued pursuant to G.S. 15-27.2 does not constitute a general warrant prohibited by Art. I, \u00a7 20 of the N. C. Constitution.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 21; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 22\u2014 administrative inspection warrant \u2014 program of inspection and probable cause standards \u2014 constitutionality\nProvisions of G.S. 15-27.2(c)(1) which permit a magistrate to issue an administrative inspection warrant upon making an independent determination that the target property \u201cis to be searched or inspected as part of a legally authorized program of inspection which naturally includes that property\u201d or that there is \u201cprobable cause\u201d justifying an administrative inspection of the property are not unconstitutionally void for vagueness.\n3. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 22\u2014 administrative inspection warrant \u2014 affidavit \u2014 showing necessary under program of inspection standard\nAn affidavit for issuance of an administrative inspection warrant under the \u201cprogram of inspection\u201d standard of G.S. 15-27.2(c)(l) must contain an adequate description of the \u201cgeneral administrative plan,\u201d the \u201cspecific neutral criteria\u201d used to determine which businesses will be inspected under the plan, and facts showing why the particular business sought to be inspected comes within the plan.\n4. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 22\u2014 administrative inspection warrant \u2014program of inspection standard \u2014 conclusory allegation in affidavit\nA conclusory allegation in an affidavit that business property \u201cis to be inspected as part of a legally authorized program of inspection which naturally includes that property\u201d is insufficient to support the issuance of an administrative inspection warrant.\n5. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 19\u2014 validity of warrant \u2014 consideration of affidavits \u2014 applicability to administrative inspection warrants\nThe rule that the sufficiency of a search warrant should properly be determined with reference to the supporting affidavits is also applicable to administrative inspection warrants.\n6. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 23\u2014 OSHA inspection warrant \u2014 validity\nA warrant authorizing an OSHA inspection of business premises and the supporting affidavits were sufficient to meet minimal standards under the \u201cprogram of inspection\u201d test set out in G.S. 15-27.2(c)(l) where the affidavits contained sufficient facts to enable the issuing officer to make an independent determination that the Department of Labor had developed a plan for enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act which used neutral criteria in selecting particular businesses to be inspected, and facts in the affidavits indicated that the business sought to be inspected fell within this general plan because it had never been inspected, it was engaged in a high hazard industry according to a standard industrial classification code, and it involved the use of various types of machinery.\n7. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 25\u2014 OSHA inspection warrant \u2014statistics showing probability of violations \u2014 insufficiency to show probable cause\nAn attempt to show through statistics that an inspection of a business would be likely to reveal OSHA violations is not sufficient to meet the \u201cprobable cause\u201d test under G.S. 15-27.2(c)(l).\n8. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 19\u2014 OSHA inspection warrant \u2014 objects of inspection shown by affidavits\nAlthough a warrant authorizing an OSHA inspection of business premises did not itself specifically indicate the objects of the inspection, it sufficiently complied with G.S. 15-27.2(d)(3) where the supporting affidavits set out in great detail various objects and conditions that the inspection was intended to check or reveal.\nAPPEAL by respondents from Herring, Judge, Judgment entered 28 April 1978 in Superior Court, BLADEN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 15 November 1978.\nThis matter was heard upon a petition for an Order compelling respondents to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for refusal to honor an Administrative Inspection Warrant issued pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2. Respondents answered, denying validity of the warrant, and filed motions to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment. After a hearing, respondents\u2019 motions were denied, and the Court entered an Order on 28 April 1978 making findings of fact, which, except where quoted, are summarized below:\nRespondent Taylor Tobacco Enterprises, Inc., is a North Carolina corporation and is subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of North Carolina (\u201cOSHA\u201d), G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 95-126 to -155, and is subject to administrative inspection thereunder pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 95-136. On 29 December 1977, the respondents refused to submit to a warrantless inspection of their premises by agents of the North Carolina Department of Labor. On 21 March 1978, an Administrative Inspection Warrant was issued and was properly served on the respondents at the situs of Taylor Tobacco Enterprises. Upon service of the search warrant, \u201cRespondent George Ronald Taylor, while acting in his capacity as an officer of the Respondent Taylor Tobacco Enterprises, Inc., stated to duly authorized O.S.H.A. inspectors that he would prevent them from inspecting the premises\u201d .and that the respondents \u201cacted willfully, deliberately, and knowingly and conducted themselves in such a manner as to lead the O.S.H.A. inspectors present to reasonably believe that force might be used if they attempted to conduct the inspection authorized by the aforementioned warrant.\u201d The court also found that the administrative inspection warrant was based on \u201cprobable cause to believe that violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act are present at the situs of the property described above\u201d and that the warrant \u201ccomplied with every mandate of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions and was lawfully and properly issued.\nBased on the foregoing, the trial court concluded that Respondents were \u201cin contempt of the lawful Order of this Court\u201d and ordered them to pay a fine of $500 or submit to an administrative inspection within ten days of entry of judgment. Respondents appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney George W. Lennon, for petitioner appellee.\nPaderick, Warrick & Johnson, by Dale P. Johnson, for respondent appellants." }, "file_name": "0529-01", "first_page_order": 557, "last_page_order": 566 }