Perez v. Blue Mountain Farms
961 F. Supp. 2d 1164
E.D. Wash.2013Background
- Secretary of Labor filed suit to enforce MSPA and obtain entry to defendants' blueberry fields and packing shed after investigators were barred from access in July 2013.
- Investigators from the Wage and Hour Division visited the defendants' open-field operations in Walla Walla County, Washington in July 2013.
- Defendants allegedly barred entry and threatened local law enforcement if investigators did not leave the property on July 24, 2013.
- The court initially denied the TRO but converted the motion to a preliminary injunction with expedited briefing and hearings.
- The essential issue is whether the Secretary may enter open fields without a warrant but may enter buildings only with a warrant or under a sufficiently defined regulatory scheme.
- The Court limits relief to open-field access and bars videotaping or supervisor presence during interviews, with structures access denied without a warrant; the injunction is effective through September 30, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Secretary enter open fields without a warrant under MSPA? | Secretary seeks to vindicate §1862(a) investigative authority. | Open-field entry may be limited by Fourth Amendment protections. | Likely to succeed on open-field entry without a warrant. |
| May Secretary enter buildings/packing shed without a warrant? | Buildings are within MSPA investigative scope; regulated industry reduces privacy expectations. | Fourth Amendment requires warrants or defined regulatory scheme limitations for buildings. | Secretary unlikely to succeed; buildings require a warrant. |
| Irreparable harm and need for in-field interviews without undue interference | Interviews in fields necessary to ensure accurate wage records; ongoing investigation requires access. | Not expressly stated; defendants argue against intrusive field access. | Irreparable harm shown; interviews must proceed in fields with minimal interference. |
| Public interest in enforcement of MSPA through in-field interviews | In-field interviews essential to protect migrant workers' rights under MSPA. | Open-field access should be constrained to protect property interests. | Public interest favors access to workers in open fields. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunctions require showing of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and balance of equities)
- Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1987) (courts balance injury and consider public consequences in injunctions)
- McLaughlin v. Elsberry, Inc., 868 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1988) (entry without warrant affirmed as part of MSPA investigative power)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1984) (open field doctrine; open fields are not subject to Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1987) (open field and property search standards relevant to curtilage and fields)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1987) (heavily regulated industry reduces privacy expectations but requires defined inspection limits)
- Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1981) (criteria for warrantless inspections in regulatory schemes)
- Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1978) (warrant requirements and inspection scope considerations in regulatory contexts)
- Ca. Acrylic Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 150 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 1998) (limits on recording or surveillance during interviews)
- United States v. Van Damme, 48 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 1995) (open-field and Fourth Amendment considerations for inspections)