Johnson v. Smith, 104 F.4th 153

Plaintiffs Scott Johnson and Harlene Hoyt challenged the constitutionality of Kansas statutes permitting warrantless inspections of their business, a bird dog training kennel operated from their home, under the Kansas Pet Animal Act.
Kansas law requires all businesses housing a certain number of animals (including training kennels) to be licensed and subject to warrantless inspections at reasonable times without prior notice.
The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.
The main legal arguments focused on alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search) and the right to travel.
The appellate court reviewed whether the training kennel industry is "closely regulated" enough to justify warrantless inspections, and whether the inspection timing requirement violates the right to travel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrantless inspections of boarding/training kennels violate 4A	Training kennels are not closely regulated; warrantless search improper	Such kennels are like other regulated animal businesses; exception applies	Remand: Not clearly a closely regulated industry; further proceedings needed
Kansas requirement to allow inspection within 30 minutes violates right to travel	30-minute rule effectively restricts travel from home	Owners can designate agents; no discriminatory burden	Affirmed: Rule does not substantially impair travel
Fourth Amendment unconstitutional-conditions claim	License unlawfully conditioned on waiving 4A rights	No 4A violation so no constitutional conditioning	Reversed and remanded: Claim stands or falls with 4A claim

Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cty. of S.F., 387 U.S. 523 (administrative searches generally need a warrant)
See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (Fourth Amendment applies to commercial premises inspections)
Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (warrantless searches allowed in historic, pervasively regulated industries)
United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (closely regulated industry exception applies to firearms dealers)
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (businesses not pervasively regulated generally need a warrant)
Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (pervasive regulation and defined inspection programs can justify warrantless searches)
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (three-part test for closely regulated industries exception)
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (limits the closely-regulated industry exception; hotels not pervasively regulated)