LeSueur-Richmond Slate Corp. v. Fehrer, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 786

LeSueur-Richmond Slate operated a Virginia slate quarry; Department inspectors conducted ~25 warrantless inspections from Dec 2007 to Jun 2008.
Inspections followed anonymous tips alleging violations of Virginia’s Mineral Mine Safety Act; 32 violations were issued against LeSueur-Richmond.
LeSueur-Richmond sued in § 1983, claiming Fourth Amendment and Virginia constitutional violations from the warrants-free inspections.
Defendants moved to dismiss on claim preclusion, Younger abstention, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim; district court granted on qualified immunity and failure to state claims.
Court applied Burger three-prong test to evaluate constitutionality of Virginia statute authorizing warrantless inspections and considered conduct of inspectors.
Court held the Act satisfies Burger’s third prong and that inspectors’ conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment given multiple complaints and lack of harassment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Virginia statute satisfies Burger’s warrantless inspection test	LeSueur-Richmond argues the statute lacks adequate notice and scope.	Appellees contend the statute provides notice, limits discretion, and serves a valid regulatory purpose.	Statute satisfies Burger three-prong test; facially constitutional.
Whether inspectors’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment despite a constitutional statute	Inspections were pretextual or conducted beyond permitted scope.	Conduct was supported by multiple complaints and not harassing; within statute’s limits.	No Fourth Amendment violation given objective complaints and proper purpose.
Whether Virginia § 19.2-59 claims require a warrant for surface mine inspections	§ 19.2-59 imposes a blanket warrant requirement for all searches.	§ 19.2-59 not applicable to these inspections or harmonized to avoid nullifying the Act.	§ 19.2-59 not applied to these inspections; claim dismissed.
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Constitutional violations were clearly established; officials should be liable.	No constitutional violation; actions were lawful under the statute.	Appellees protected by qualified immunity; no clearly established violation.

New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (three-prong test for warrantless inspections in heavily regulated industries)
Turner v. Dammon, 848 F.2d 440 (4th Cir. 1988) (statutory program may be challenged for conduct; limits on officials matter)
Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981) (principle that constitutional rules can be read into statutes to prevent harassment)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (reaffirms that courts may address qualified immunity doctrines flexibly)