*1 LABOR, OF MARSHALL, SECRETARY et al. INC. BARLOW’S, May 23, 1978 January 9, 1978 Decided Argued 76-1143. No. *2 J., opinion Court, J., delivered the of White, C. Burger, joined. and JJ., and J., filed a Stewart, Marshall, Powell, SteveNS, dissenting opinion, in JJ., joined, post, which BlackmuN and RehNQUist, p. J., part 325. took no in the or consideration decision of the BreNNAN, case.
Solicitor General McCree argued appellants. the cause for Wallace, him Deputy Solicitor General With on the briefs were Smith, A. Stuart and Michael Levin. H.
John L. argued appellee. the cause for him With Runft Iver J. Longeteig.* brief was Spannaus, *Warren Attorney Minnesota, Allyn, General of Richard B. General, Solicitor Lockridge, Special Steven M. Gunn and Richard A. and Attorneys General, Assistant filed a brief for 11 States as amici curiae urging reversal, joined by Attorneys respective General for their States Kelley Hyland as follows: Frank J. Michigan, Jerssey, of William F. of New Toney Anaya of Mexico, Carolina, New Edmisten of North Robert Rufus P. Pennsylvania, Kane of Carolina, Daniel McLeod of R. South M. Jerome Vermont, Anthony Troy Diamond of F. Virginia, of Frank and V. Wyoming. Mendicino of Briefs of urging amici curiae reversal were filed by Albert J. Woll and Laurence Gold for the American Federation of Labor Congress and Organizations; of by Industrial and Michael R. Sherwood for the Sierra Club et al. urging
Briefs of amici by Wayne Kidwell, curiae affirmance were filed L. Attorney Guy Idaho, Hurlbutt, of Attorney General and G. Deputy Chief Hansen, Attorney Robert General, B. Utah, General of L. and Michael Deamer, Attorney Deputy General, Utah; by for the States of Idaho and Allen A. Lauterbach Federation; for the American Farm Bureau Robert Thompson, Kraus, Stanley T. Kaleczyc Lawrence and for the Chamber T. States; Anthony Commerce of Obadd, the United J. Steven R. of the Court. opinion White delivered Justice
Mr. Health Act Safety and Occupational (a) Section of the agents empowers Act) (OSHA employment work area search (Secretary) to Labor purpose jurisdiction. Act’s facility within the of OSHA violations safety hazards is to search expressly process or other search warrant No regulations. the Act. under required 11, 1975, OSHA September morning
theOn an elec- Inc., Barlow’s, area service the customer entered Pocatello, located business installation plumbing trical “Bill” G. Ferrol manager, general The president Idaho. showing after inspector, OSHA hand; was on Barlow, *3 con- wished that he Barlow informed Mr. credentials,2 his Dowd, and H. Theberge, Edward Yohay, Leonard J. Stephen C. Seniler, D. Foundation; by James Legal States Mountain for the James Watt by Busipess; and Independent Federation the National for McKevitt Hugh W. Ferri, Jr., and Findley, Albert Zumbrun, John H. Ronald A. Legal Foundation. Pacific for the O’Riordm Jr., Rader, by E. filed Robert curiae were amici Briefs of O’Toole, Ooldberger, Barbara Union; David and Conservative American Smotherman, Jr., Rudenstine for David and Stokes, Ira J. McNeill Union, Liberties Inc., Civil Foundation, of the American Roger Baldwin Division. Illinois upon Secretary, chapter, the purposes of this carry out “In order to agent in owner, operator, or credentials appropriate presenting charge, is authorized— factory, plant, any times delay at reasonable “(1) to enter without environment workplace or area, site, or other
establishment, construction employer; an employee of performed work is where working hours and during regular investigate “(2) and' a reasonable limits times, reasonable other within reasonable conditions, struc pertinent all employment and manner, any place of such therein, and and materials equipment, devices, machines, tures, apparatus, agent, owner, operator, employer, privately such question (a). C. 1598, 29 S. employee.” 84 Stat. supra. 1, required by See n. the Act. This Mr. of the business. areas working a search duct had been received any complaint inquired whether Barlow but no, inspector The answered company. about his selection agency’s up in the Inc., simply had turned Barlow’s, nonpublic to enter process. inspector again asked inquire response was area of Mr. Barlow’s business; inspector warrant. inspector whether the had a search Mr. Barlow refused Thereupon, had none. he He said employee of his business.
admission area Amend- the Fourth guaranteed by was on his relying rights as ment of the United Constitution. States Secretary petitioned the United later,
Three months issue an order States District for the District of Idaho to requested inspector.3 The compelling Mr. Barlow to admit the presented to 30, 1975, order was issued on December and was again refused Barlow on Mr. Barlow January 5, Mr. 1976. against relief admission, injunctive and he his own sought A three- permitted by warrantless assertedly searches OSHA. ruled it judge 30, 1976, court was convened. On December Concluding Supp. Mr. Barlow’s favor. 424 F. 437. Court, 523, (1967), 528-529 Municipal Camara v. 387 U. S. Seattle, (1967), and See v. controlled 387 U. S. required Fourth Amendment case, the court held that here4 and that type search involved uncon- statutory inspections warrantless authorization for An injunction against stitutional. searches or *4 Secretary appealed, pursuant (a)8 entered. The § was jurisdic- probable challenging judgment, and we noted 430 tion. S. 964. 3 requires Secretary, (1977), regulation A CFR 1903.4 of the 29 § requested employer compulsory process to seek if an refuses infra, 317,
search. See 12. at and n. 4 30, judicata against res the December No bar arose Mr. Barlow from 1975, search, reserved the authorizing order because the earlier decision Supp. constitutional 424 issue. See F. 437.
311 I Secretary that warrantless urges The enforce' meaning reasonable within the of the Fourth OSHA are Among (a) Amendment. other he relies 8 of the things, § 29 U. C. 657 which authorizes Act, (a), S. premises
business without a warrant and which the urges represents a construction the Fourth congressional reject. Regrettably, Amendment the courts should not to agree. we are unable protects Clause of the Fourth Amendment
The Warrant private as well homes. To hold buildings commercial Amendment, would belie the of that and the origin otherwise An experience. important colonial forerunner of American Constitution, 10 to the United the first Amendments States specifically opposed “general Rill of war- Virginia Rights, messenger may an officer or be commanded rants, whereby com- suspected places search without evidence a fact 5 of con- point was a general recurring mitted.” The immediately preceding in Colonies the Revolution.6 tention acutely felt particular engendered offensiveness it The prod- premises merchants and businessmen whose by the parlia- the several inspected compliance ucts were with the colonists.7 mentary revenue measures most irritated large meas- Fourth Amendment’s commands grew “(cid:127)[T]he with the of assist- experience ure out of the colonists’ writs to customs officials granted sweeping power ance . . . [that] smuggled agents King large other of the to search at Chadwick, 7-8 1, (1977). United States v. 433 U. S. goods.” 1968). History (8th Commager, ed. H. Documents of American g., See, Dickerson, a Cause of the Revolution e. Writs of Assistance as 1939). (R. of the American Revolution 40 Morris ed. The Era 1767, and the Stamp Act the Townshend Revenue Act of supra, 53, 63. examples. Commager, 5,n. of 1773 are notable See tea tax commentary, Morison, Commager, Leuchtejiburg, For see S. & W. H. (1969). Republic 143, 149, 159 American Growth *5 States, 429 U. S. Leasing Corp. United M. v. also G. See it is untenable background, this Against (1977). intended to searches ban on warrantless as as well of residence. of business places shield searches already that warrantless has held This to com- applies this rule and that unreasonable, generally Municipal In Camara as homes. premises well mercial 528-529, we held: Court, supra, cases, a classes carefully defined
“[E]xcept in certain consent proper without property of private search valid a it has been authorized unless 'unreasonable' search warrant.” ruled: also day, the same we
On Camara, houses private a search explained “As we without if conducted presumptively unreasonable occupant of a resi- like the businessman, warrant. business go about his right constitutional dence, has a upon private his official entries free from unreasonable businessman, too, has that property. commercial to enter and if the decision jeopardy right placed made and can be regulatory laws violation official in the field without by enforced Seattle, supra, authority a warrant.” See v. evidenced at 543. Fourth Amendment same cases held also
These against protects searches prohibition against unreasonable as criminal investi- civil as well during intrusions warrantless purpose in the “basic reason is found Ibid. The gations. privacy safeguard the . . is to Amendment . [which] by gov- arbitrary invasions security against of individuals If Camara, govern- supra, at 528. officials.” ernmental privacy interest property, person’s ment intrudes investigate is to government’s motivation whether the suffers statutory or of other or breaches criminal laws violations *6 some unless appears that regulatory standards. It therefore applies, See requirement exception to the warrant recognized conduct the a warrant require v. Seattle would sought in this case. from search exception Secretary that an urges “pervasively reg- requirement recognized been has Biswell, 311, 406 U. S. United States v. businesses],”
ulated sub- “long industries (1972), “closely regulated” and 316 Colonnade Cater- inspection.” ject supervision to close These States, ing 72, 74, (1970). Corp. v. United U. S. represent responses they but exceptions, cases are indeed have industries relatively circumstances. Certain unique no reasonable oversight of history government such a States, 389 U. S. of Katz v. United expectation privacy, see proprietor over 351-352 exist for a 347, (1967), could firearms (Colonnade) and enterprise. Liquor stock such an entrepreneur when (Biswell) are industries this type; voluntarily chosen upon business, such he has embarks a regulation. subject governmental himself to a full arsenal carefully “certain Industries such as these fall within Camara, 528. S., cases,” defined referenced in classes ordinary from enterprises these distinguishes The element that supervision, government tradition of close long businesses a business must chooses to enter such a person who cases “A difference between those already be aware. central this one is that businessmen Biswell] [Colonnade regulated enterprises federally in such licensed and engaged trade, of their accept the burdens as well as benefits any regulated petitioner engaged whereas the here was industry in regulated licensed The businessman business. him.” placed upon in effect consents to the restrictions States, (1973). 266, United 413 U. Almeida-Sanchez v. S. closely regulated of our cases is import The clear type involved in Colonnade and Biswell is industry of the Invoking it the exception. would make rule. Walsh-Healey seq., Act 41 U. 35 et C. S. Secretary attempts support conclusion that all businesses involved in interstate commerce have been long subjected supervision close employee safety and health conditions. But the degree of federal in employee working involvement circumstances has specificity never been of the order of pervasiveness quite that OSHA mandates. unconvincing It to argue imposition that the of minimum maximum wages and hours on employers who contracted with the Government under the Walsh-Healey Act prepared entirety of American *7 interstate for regulation commerce to working conditions the minutest any detail. Nor can but the most fictional sense of voluntary consent to later searches in single be found fact that one conducts a business com- affecting interstate merce; practice under current few law, businesses can be conducted without having some effect on interstate commerce.
The Secretary also attempts
support
derive
a
Colonnade-Biswell-type exception by
analogies from
drawing
NLRB,
field of labor
In Republic
Corp.
law.
Aviation
The critical fact in this case is entry over Mr. Barlow’s objection is being sought by a agent.8 Employees Government
8The Government has asked that Mr. Barlow be ordered to show cause why contempt he should not be held in refusing to honor the order, position and its is that inspector OSHA is now entitled to once, objection. enter over Mr. Barlow’s violations. OSHA reporting from prohibited being are undoubtedly is functions daily their they observe What The privacy. expectation employer’s reasonable beyond Without employee. not an is however, inspector, Government member a than position better in no he stands a warrant observable, is public is observable What public. well.9 as Government warrant, by without necessary utilization by the not, has of business The owner where the areas open thrown operation, his employees scrutiny the warrantless permitted alone employees report, is free to employee That an agents. Government noncompliance evidence use, free the Government no justifica- furnishes observes employee with OSHA from of business place enter a agents federal tion for warrantless their own to conduct public restricted search.10
II that the enforce- argues stoutly Secretary nevertheless searches, warrantless requires the Act ment scheme of Act in the contained discretion on search restrictions that the aas privacy much already protect regulations and its the actual thereby asserts would. *8 rule general the whatever searches, of OSHA reasonableness “reasonable- be. Because might searches warrantless against Municipal v. Camara standard,” ultimate the is still ness 9 Corp., S.U. Bd. v. Western Variance Pollution Cf. Air Alfalfa (1974). help Secretary are even less by the cases cited The automobile-search occupy automobiles fact that cases. than the labor position his ful to beyond by doubt now law case category in Fourth Amendment special a car, mobility registration of a the quick factors, to the due, among other oppor driver, the available and more car and requirements of both Cady v. Dombrow contents. a car’s observations tunity plain-view Maroney, 399 also Chambers see (1973); 433, 441-442 ski, 413 U. S. has not been abandoned probable cause so, (1970). Even 42, 48-51 U. S. searching an automobile. stopping requirement and as a Court, S., Secretary suggests that the by decide whether a warrant is needed arriving at a sensible balance between the administrative necessities of OSHA inspections protection and the incremental of busi- privacy ness owners only a warrant would afford. He suggests that decision inspections OSHA from the exempting Warrant give Clause would “full recognition public competing private and interests here at stake.” Ibid. Secretary submits that warrantless
essential proper they enforcement OSHA because opportunity afford the prior without notice and hence preserve advantages surprise. While conditions dangerous by outlawed the Act include structural defects quickly that cannot be hidden the Act also remedied, regulates myriad may details safety be amenable to speedy alteration or disguise. The risk is that during inspector’s interval between an request plant initial to search a his procuring a warrant the owner’s following refusal permission, violations of this type latter could be corrected thus escape inspector’s notice. To the suggestion that warrants ex parte be issued delay executed without prior and without thereby notice, preserving the element of surprise, Secretary expresses concern for the administrative experienced strain that would be inspection system, courts, should ex parte warrants issued in advance become practice. standard
We are unconvinced, however, requiring warrants to inspect will impose serious inspection system burdens on the prevent or the will courts, inspections necessary to enforce the statute, or will make them less In place, effective. the first the great majority of expected businessmen can be in normal course to consent to inspection warrant; without has not brought to this Court’s any widespread attention pattern of In refusal.11 those cases where an owner does insist
11 recognize today’s We holding might impact itself have an on
317 efficiency inspection Secretary argues warrant, on a Act’s delay. The and by the advance notice impeded will be search, 29 of a notice advance provisions giving penalty 29 CFR regulations, own Secretary’s C. 666 and the (f), § U. S. are indeed searches surprise indicate that (1977), 1903.6 § a promulgated also Secretary has contemplated. However, permit an refusal to providing upon regulation inspec- complete inspection, his property or to to enter and for the refusal the reasons attempt to ascertain tor shall appropriate “promptly take his who shall report superior, to necessary.” 29 CFR if compulsory process, action, including pro- choice to represents a regulation (1977).12 1903.4 The § only searches; requested we can await to owners choose resist whether determine how present this record to development evidence not might be. impediment to effective enforcement serious an Act, C. (a) 29 U. S. Secretary asserts, that true, It is § warrant; but it is also inspections without (a), purports to authorize 657§ only Secretary proceeding to from that it does not forbid true authority prescribe to has broad process. The or other carry his necessary out deem regulations as he such rules and dealing “including regulations rules responsibilities chapter, under this (2), (g) employer’s establishment.” inspection of an with the § respect (2). regulations (g) The with C. U. S. § referred to in (1977). 1903.4, Part 1903 Section in 29 CFR contained provides text, as follows: Officer, in Safety Health permit Compliance “Upon a refusal to delay reasonable duties, enter without and at his the exercise of official therein, review any inspect, place employment place or times employee, owner, operator, agent, or question any employer, records, or to employees 1903.3, permit representative or to in accordance with § during physical Safety Health Compliance Officer accompany the 1903.8, Compliance any workplace in with inspection of accordance or confine Safety shall terminate and Health Officer structures, machines, apparatus, conditions, areas, to other concerning records, materials, devices, equipment, interviews shall Safety Officer Compliance Health objection no is raised. immediately refusal, and he shall ascertain the reason for such endeavor to the Area Director. report the reason therefor to the refusal and Regional immediately Direc- the Assistant Area Director shall consult with *10 by process entry ceed refused; where and on the basis present evidence available from practice, the Act’s effective- crippled by has not been ness those owners who wish providing entry an requested lapse refuse initial with a time while inspector necessary process.13 obtains the Indeed, process sought kind of apparently anticipated this case and by regulation provides operator.14 notice the business Regional Solicitor, tor and the promptly appropriate action, who shall take including compulsory process, necessary.” if representative Barlow,
When his was refused admission Mr. Secretary proceeded in right federal court to enforce his to enter and inspect, as conferred 29 U. S. C. 657. 13 change language A Compliance Operations Manual for inspectors supports that, OSHA the inference adminis whatever Act’s might thought eventually trators have the start, it was concluded efficiency jeopardized by enforcement permitting employers would not be entry, to refuse process. at least until the compulsory obtained The 1972 specifically Manual included a obtaining section directed to n parte “warrants,” provision and one of that dealt ex with warrants: section “In entry cases expected where a refusal of past per is to be from the employer, employer formance of the given where the has some indica prior tion to the investigation commencement of the of his intention to bar entry or limit or interfere with the investigation, a should be obtained before the attempted. Cases of this nature should through also be referred appropriate Regional the Area Director to the Solicitor and Regional Dept. Labor, Administrator alerted.” OSHA Compliance Operations (Jan. 1972). Manual V-7 manual, The latest available incorporating changes as of November provision, leaving only deletes this obtaining “compulsory the details for process” employer entry. an has Dept. Labor, refused OSHA Field after Operations Manual, V, pp. present form, Vol. In V — 4-V-5. its the Secre tary’s regulation appears permit establishment owners to insist on “process”; and permit entry hence their refusal to would short of fall meaning criminal (1976 conduct within the of 18 S. and 1114 U. C. §§ ed.), forcibly it impede, intimidate, make a crime or interfere officials, including inspectors, with federal engaged OSHA while in or performance account of the of their officialduties. proceeding by filing The was instituted “Application an for Affirmative Entry why Order to for Order Grant to show cause such affirmative administration efficient endangers safeguard If particu- adopted it, have never Secretary should OSHA, immediately it isNor it. require not does Act when the larly cause, to show order issued District issue.” order should authorizing then issued order argued, and an matter issued order following is the by Barlow’s. enjoining interference *11 Court: by the District that DECREED AND ORDERED, ADJUDGED HEREBY “IT IS Occupa- Labor, of Department United States America, of United States the designated duly through its Administration, Safety Health and tional premises the entry upon to entitled are representatives, or representative may go Idaho, and Pocatello, Pine, Inc., 225 West Barlow’s known as investigation and inspection an to conduct premises upon business said Safety and Occupational Health 8 of the in Section provided as inspection program an seq.), part of as 651, et C. (29 U. S. Act of inves- inspection and the Act; that that compliance with assure designed to rea- at other working hours or regular during conducted shall be tigation manner, all as in a reasonable limits and reasonable times, within sonable promulgated to such pertaining regulations forth the set appropriate 1903; that R., Part F. Labor, at 29 C. Secretary of by the Ad- Safety Health and Occupational representatives as credentials Labor, presented be shall Department ministration, States United and premises and upon said representative Inc. Barlow’s the issuance practicable after soon as commenced be investigation shall promptness; reasonable completed within be and shall Order of this other or the establishment extend investigation shall inspection and by employees performed work where or environment area, workplace, structures, conditions, pertinent Inc., to all and Barlow’s employer, things other materials, and all devices, equipment, machines, apparatus, con- processes, files, papers, records, n,ot limited but (including therein furnishing to Inc. is Barlow’s bearing upon facilities) whether trols, and from are free employment that place and a employment employees its or serious likely cause death causing are are hazards recognized complying Inc. Barlow’s whether and employees, its to> harm physical under promulgated Standards Safety Health Occupational with the regulations, rules, Act and Health Safety and Occupational Occupa- representatives Act; that to that pursuant issued orders of Barlow’s option may, at Administration Safety and Health tional Inc., pursuant Barlow’s employees more by one or accompanied Inc., be representatives, agents, Inc., its Act; Barlow’s (e) of that to Section why apparent advantages surprise would if, be lost after procedures being entry, refused were available for the Secre- tary parte to seek an ex reappear warrant and to premises further being without notice the establishment inspected.15
Whether Secretary proceeds to secure a warrant or other process, with or prior without his notice, entitlement depend will not on his demonstrating probable cause to believe that conditions in violation OSHA exist on the premises. Probable cause in the criminal law is not sense required. For purposes of administrative search such as this, probable cause justifying issuance of a only be specific based evidence of an existing violation16 but also on a showing that “reasonable legislative or admin istrative standards for conducting an . inspection . . are satisfied respect particular with to a Camara [establishment].” officers, employees hereby enjoined anyway and restrained from in interfering whatsoever with investigation authorized *12 and, this Order further, hereby Barlow’s to, Inc. is ordered and directed working days within five from the date of this Order, copy furnish a of this Order to its officers managers, and, and addition, in post copy a of this employee’s Order at its bulletin upon board located premises; business hereby and Barlow’s Inc. is ordered comply and directed respects in all with this order and allow investigation and place to take delay without and forthwith.” 15 Secretary’s Insofar statutory as the authority concerned, regula a expressly tion providing Secretary that the proceed parte could ex to seek equivalent a warrant or its appear would to be as much within the Secre tary’s power regulation as currently in calling “compul force and for sory process.” 8(f)(1), Section (f)(1), S. C. provides employees that §657 representatives or their may give Secretary written notice to the of what they safety believe to be violations of may request or health standards and an inspection. If the then determines that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that such danger exists, violation or he shall make a special inspection in provisions accordance with the of this section as soon practicable.” purports statute thus to authorize a warrantless inspection in these circumstances. that showing A warrant Court, 538. S., 387 U. Municipal on the search OSHA for an has chosen been business specific
a enforcement for the plan administrative general a basis of example, for as, such sources from neutral derived Act a industries across types in various employees dispersion of the in of searches frequency desired area, and the given Fourth employer’s an protect would area, of the divisions lesser consumption that doubt rights.17 We Amendment will such warrants obtaining of in the energies enforcement proportions. manageable exceed requiring a Secretary urges
Finally, war- matter, practical aas that, mean will inspectors OSHA also statutes are regulatory in other provisions rantless-search warrantless of a The reasonableness infirm. constitutionally enforcement specific upon depend however, will search, Some statute. each guarantees privacy and needs regula- industry, where single only apply cited statutes Colonnade-Biswell pervasive so already be might tions Some apply. could requirement the warrant exception to enforcement federal-court resort already envision statutes some in specific employing language refused, entry when base short, In we others.19 language general and cases Barlow states 9 n. Petitioner Secretary, Brief "general awas complaint but employee not based explains, “now he inspections,” general investigation. “Such schedule” with accordance out in carried Inspections, are Programmed Regional called employees the number experience upon accident based criteria Occupational Labor, Department U. S. particular industries. exposed Manual, supra, 1 CCH Operations Administration, Field Safety Health (1976).” 4327.2 ¶ Guide Safety Health Employment Safety provides: Act Mine Nonmetallie Metal Federal 18 The *13 investiga or permit refuses to . . . operator an “Whenever a civil action chapter ... this subject which any mine tion temporary or permanent a application for including relief, preventive by the may instituted be order, order, or other restraining injunction, 322
today’s opinion facts and law concerned with OSHA do not from holding appropriate retreat a to that statute imagined because of its real or effect on different other, administrative schemes.
Nor agree protections do we the incremental afforded employer’s privacy by marginal they warrant are so to justify fail the administrative may burdens that be entailed. Secretary in district court of the United States for the district (a). Secretary may 30 U. S. C. 733 “The institute a civil action for § relief, including permanent temporary injunction, restraining order, or or appropriate other order in the district court . . . whenever such operator agent or his permit . . . refuses to mine jurisdiction .... Each provide court shall have relief as such may appropriate.” be example 30 U. S. C. 818. Another is the Clean § Act, grants Air jurisdiction require which federal courts district “to com pliance” with Agency’s the Administrator of the Environmental Protection attempt (1976 ed., Supp. under U. I), S. C. 7414 when the § Administrator has “a injunctive commenced civil action” for relief or to penalty. recover a (b)(4) (1976 U. ed., I). S. C. Supp. § 7413 19Exemplary language is contained in the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 provides Agriculture; federal district jurisdiction courts are “specifically vested with enforce, and to prevent and restrain chapter, jurisdiction violations and shall have in all arising other kinds of chapter.” cases under this 7 U. S. C. 2146 § (c) (1976 ed.). provisions Similar agricultural included other inspection Acts; see, g., (meat e. product S. inspection) ; U. C. § 21 U. (egg product S. C. 1050 inspection). Code, § The Internal Revenue whose provisions excise tax requiring inspections of businesses are cited Secretary, provides: “The juris district courts . . . shall have such diction to make and issue actions, injunc civil writs and orders of tion . . . and such other processes, orders and and to render such . . . necessary decrees as be appropriate or for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” 26 (a). gasoline S. C. 7402 inspections, For § federal district granted jurisdiction courts are to restrain violations and (one which, enforce standards requires gas U. S. C. trans § porters permit entry inspection). The owner is be afforded the opportunity for and response cases, notice in most give but “failure to such notice opportunity and afford such preclude shall not granting appropriate [by relief the district (a). 49 U. S. C. 1679 court].”
323
almost
devolves
searches
warrantless
authority to make
The
officers,
and administrative
upon executive
discretion
unbridled
whom
and
to search
when
field,
the
to
those
particularly
assurances
provide
would
contrast,
warrant, by
A
to search.
under
is reasonable
inspection
the
that
officer
a neutral
from
to
pursuant
is
and
statute,
Constitution,
authorized
the
criteria.20
neutral
specific
containing
plan
administrative
an
of the
owner
the
there advise
then and
would
a warrant
Also,
the
limits
which
beyond
search,
the
objects of
scope and
important
are
These
proceed.21
expected
is not
underlie
functions
perform,
for a
functions
applies
Clause
Warrant
that
decisions
prior
Court’s
Secretary
20
in this
by the
filed
inspection order
for the
application
The
are con
investigation
inspection and
desired
that “the
represented
case
compliance
to assure
designed
program
inspection
part of an
templated as
pro
The
Act.”
(a) of the
8
by Section
are authorized
Act and
with
indi
that would
presented
facts
however,
any
described,
or
gram was
program.
within
was
establishment
of Barlow’s
why
inspection
an
cate
authorized
generally
concluded
issued
order
with
compliance
assure
designed to
program
“part
an
Act.”
(a), provides
21
657
C.
29
S.
Act,
in U.
forth
§
as set
(a)
Section
chapter” the
purposes
carry
out
order
that “[i]n
work
“where
or environment
area,
place
establishment,
work
any
may enter
investigate”
“inspect and
employer” and
employee of an
performed
structures,
conditions,
“pertinent
all
and
employment
place of
such
therein, and . . .
and materials
devices, equipment,
machines, apparatus,
employee.”
agent,
owner, operator,
employer,
any such
privately
question
and
working
regular
hours
“during
out
be carried
are to
Inspections
in a reasonable
limits
reasonable
times,
within
reasonable
other
statutory language in these
echo
Secretary’s regulations
manner.”
inspectors are
They
provide that
also
(1977).
1903.3
29 CFR
respects.
§
“indicate
inspection and
purpose
the nature
explain
(1977).
(a)
1903.7
29 CFR
inspection.”
§
scope of
generally
1903.7
authorized,
CFR
§
photographs
samples and
Environmental
preclude
performed
as “to
so
be
are to
inspections
(1977), (b)
employer’s establishment.”
of the
operations
disruption
unreasonable
reflected
in this case
order
issued
(1977). The
(d)
1903.7
CFR
language.
regulatory
statutory and
foregoing
much
compliance with regulatory statutes.22 Camara
Court,
Seattle,
Municipal
v.
See
(1967);
In of the warrantless authorized statute, (a) expressly among does not include records those items § things examined, (c) merely provides or be § employer pertinent is to his periodic “make available” records and to make reports. Secretary’s regulation, however,
The (1977), expressly 1903.3 CFR § among inspector’s powers authority includes “to review records required by regulations published chapter, the Act and this and other directly purpose inspection.” records which are related to the of the requires Further, inspectors generally 1903.7 to indicate “the records § specified they in 1903.3 which designations wish to review” but “such § preclude records shall specified access to additional records in 1903.3.” Secretary’s position, reject, It is the which we that an scope may documents of this be effected without warrant. among objects order issued things included case inspected things
to be “all other therein (including but not limited to rec- ords, files, papers, processes, facilities) bearing upon controls and whether Barlow’s, employees furnishing employment Inc. is to its place and a employment recognized that are causing free from hazards that are or likely physical to cause employees, death or serious harm to its Barlow’s, complying regulations. Inc. is with . . whether OSHA
III judg- declaratory to a entitled Barlow’s hold that We purports itas insofar unconstitutional Act is that the ment equivalent or its without authorize extent.23 to that Act’s enforcement enjoining injunction affirmed. therefore District judgment ordered. So in the consideration part no took Brennan Justice Mr. of this case. decision Blackmun Justice whom Stevens, with Mr. Justice Mr. Rehnquist dissenting. join, Justice
and Mr. toAct Health Safety and Occupational Congress enacted *16 areas work in the hazards against employees safeguard Congress compliance, To ensure Act. the subject to businesses non- routine, conduct Labor Secretary of the authorized the Fourth that holds Court Today the inspections. consensual warrant. without inspections such prohibits Amendment required constitutionally the holds Court also The I cause. probable showing without may be issued holdings. these both of with disagree each Clauses, separate two contains Amendment Fourth The be not however, should Court, by District injunction entered author exercising Secretary from to forbid understood process judicial regulations by pursuant ity conferred § address did The District satisfy Amendment. the Fourth was this case in issued inspection that the order whether issue his limited has warrant, equivalent of a the functional search constitutionality of a warrantless in this case submission declined expressly (a). has He authorized § establishment the Barlow in order obtained upon (1977) 1903.4 rely on 29 CFR § here, or obtained process course, if Of 19. Arg. Oral case. Tr. satisfy the Fourth would regulations, under revised cases other obtained inspections enjoining the occasion be no Amendment, there would (a). by 8 authorized
flatly prohibiting a category of governmental conduct. The first Clause states right to be free from unreasonable searches “shall not be violated”;1 the second unequivocally prohibits issuance warrants except “upon probable 2 In cause.” this case the ultimate question is whether the category warrantless searches authorized by the statute is “unreasonable” within the meaning of the first Clause.
In cases involving the investigation criminal activity, Court has held that the reasonableness of a search generally depends upon whether it was pursuant conducted to a valid g., warrant. See, e. Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 U. S. v. 443. is, There however, also a category of searches which are reasonable within the meaning of the first Clause even though the probable-cause requirement of the Warrant Clause cannot be satisfied. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, S.U. 543; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. South Dakota Opperman, 1;S. v.
I The warrant requirement is linked “textually ... the probable-cause concept” in the Warrant South Clause. Dakota v. Opperman, supra, at 370 n. 5. The routine OSHA inspections are, definition, not based cause to believe there is a violation on premises inspected. be if Hence, were measured against the requirements of the *17 Warrant Clause, they would be automatically and unequiv- ocally unreasonable. 1 “The right of people the to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, and against unreasonable searches seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” no issue, “[A]nd Warrants shall upon probable but cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly place describing the searched, to be persons the or things to be seized.” and reasonableness importance acknowledged the
Because of regulatory- federal enforcement in the inspections of routine requiring that recognizes OSHA, the such as statutes all invalidate would Clause the with Warrant compliance full analyzing simply than Yet, rather programs. such of the Clause "Reasonableness” under the programs such in- program the OSHA holds Amendment, the Court Fourth a blanket avoids and then Clause the under Warrant valid relying by regulatory routine, on all prohibition the in requirement cause” “probable the notion on the that believes the Court be whenever relaxed Clause Warrant category conduct need governmental the by protected interests on the intrusion outweighs “searches” Amendment. Fourth the plain language disregards approach Court’s struck balance is unfaithful Clause
Warrant safe- procedural one Amendment —“the Fourth of the Framers the events out directly that grew in Constitution guard with revolutionary struggle preceded immediately con- includes history preconstitutional This England.” warrants general issuance over England troversy colonial and the libel laws seditious aid enforcement collection facilitate issued to of assistance with writs experience Parliament. imposed duties import the various issuance attending the abuses with the familiarity Framers’ for the stimulus principal provided warrants general such embodied intrusions governmental arbitrary restraints Amendment. the Fourth about concerned were fathers constitutional
“[O]ur It overreaching warrants. about but searches, warrantless warrant feared they say much too perhaps enough plain it is but search, more than from Far concern. of their object prime was the (1966). Supreme Court and Seizure Landynski, Search J. *18 328 protection unreason-
looking against at the warrant as a searches, they authority saw it unreasonable able . oppressive searches warrant, not the general search, Since warrantless the immediate evil which the Fourth Amendment was directed, placed precise it is not surprising that the Framers only limits on its issuance. The that a requirement particularized issue on a showing probable cause was adopted power. means to circumscribe the warrant While the subsequent jurisprudence course of Fourth Amendment in this emphasizes dangers posed by warrantless searches probable conducted without cause, general it reasonable- ness standard in the Clause, Clause, first not the Warrant adopted category the Framers limit is, searches. It course, true normally the existence of a valid warrant satisfies the requirement reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. But we should not dilute the requirements of the Warrant in an to force every Clause effort kind of gov- intrusion ernmental which satisfies Fourth Amendment definition judicially “search” into a developed, warrant- preference scheme.
Fidelity to the original understanding of the Fourth Amend- ment, therefore, leads conclusion that the Warrant application Clause has no routine, regulatory inspections premises. If commercial such it is valid, they because comport with the ultimate reasonableness stand- ard of the Fourth If Amendment. the Court were correct in its view that such if inspections, undertaken warrant, without a are unreasonable in the sense, constitutional the issuance of a “new-fangled warrant”' —to use Mr. Justice Clark’s character- istically expressive par- term —without true showing of probable ticularized cause would not be sufficient to validate them.5 Taylor,
4 T. Two Interpretation (1969). Studies in Constitutional Seattle, See 387 U. (Clark, J., dissenting). S.
II were cause probable issued without Even if a warrant Court’s accept I could not Clause, faithful to the Warrant constitu- is inspection program the Government’s holding that require such a warrant fails tionally because it unreasonable necessary warrant is a whether a procedure. determining In weighed Court has cases, in “the safeguard given class Amendment interest Fourth public against interest Martinez-Fuerte, United States the individual . . . this that persuade me considerations at 555. Several U. S., routine in favor of the balance should be struck by Congress. authorized supervision regulation that has determined
Congress interest important public safety workplace in furthers an necessary is warrantless searches power that the to conduct assessing In legislation. accomplish safety goals balance, Fourth Amendment side of the public interest for that judgment its today substitutes however, authority question on the of what Congress Court states of the Act. The purposes effectuate the needed to effective, of an important ingredient surprise truly if that obtain- be retained it can representative inspection program, assures parte ex The Court warrants advance. ing re- unduly burden enforcement will not Secretary that this inspection. consent to employers will sources most because Congress’ me that persuade does not analysis The Court’s power as warrantless-inspection that determination power is regulatory of the exercise of the necessary adjunct to conclude It not unreasonable surely unreasonable. inspectors deny entry to employers the rate at which safety have businesses, may increase if covered would right deny warrantless on their have a premises, violations is correct inspector. The Court entry compliance to a to obtain by requiring inspectors problem could be avoided adoption of But the inspection visit. prior every a warrant practice such a undercuts the Court’s explanation of why a warrant requirement would not create undue enforcement problems. For, even if it were true many employers would not exercise their right demand a warrant, it would provide little solace to those charged with administration OSHA; faced with an increase in the rate of refusals and the added costs generated by futile trips to inspection sites where entry is denied, officials be compelled adopt a general practice of obtaining warrants advance. While the Court’s prediction of the effect a requirement would have on behavior covered employers may turn out to be accurate, *20 its judgment is essentially empirical. On such I issue, an would defer to Congress’ judgment regarding importance of a power warrantless-search to the OSHA enforcement scheme.
The Court also appears uncomfortable with the notion of second-guessing Congress and the Secretary on the question how the goals substantive of OSHA can best be achieved. Thus, the Court offers an explanation alternative for its refusal to accept the legislative judgment. We are told that, event, the Secretary, who is charged with enforcement of the Act, has indicated inspections without delay are not essential to the enforcement scheme. Court The bases this conclusion on a regulation prescribing the administrative response when compliance a inspector is denied entry. It provides: “The Area Director shall immediately consult with the Assistant Regional Director and the Regional Solicitor, shall who promptly take appropriate action, com- including pulsory process, if necessary.” 29 CFR 1903.4 (1977). The Court views this regulation as an admission by Secretary that no enforcement problem is generated by permitting employers deny entry and delaying the inspection until a warrant has been I obtained. disagree. regulation was promulgated against the background of a statutory right immediate entry, of which covered employers are presumably Congress Secretary obviously
aware In thought keep entry would denials of to a minimum. these surely Secretary not unreasonable for the circumstances, it orderly adopt procedure dealing an with be- he what entry. regula- lieved would be the occasional denial imply judgment by Secretary delay tion does not caused numerous entry denials of would be administra- tively acceptable.
Even if not requirement a warrant does “frustrate” the authority impose legislative purpose, the Court has no additional burden on burden is unless that required protect employer’s Fourth Amendment inter- ests.6 The essential function of traditional warrant requirement interposition is the magistrate of a neutral between the citizen and zealous law enforcement officer presumably probable so that there might objective be an determination purpose cause. But not newfangled served inspec- warrant. As acknowledges, tor’s depend “entitlement will on his demon- strating probable cause to believe that conditions in violation premises. purposes OSHA exist on the . . For of an . administrative search such this, probable justifying cause showing issuance a warrant ... be based *21 legislative that 'reasonable or administrative standards . . conducting inspection respect . satisfied with to a are Ante, particular To at 320. obtain a [establishment].’” warrant, inspector specific only the need show that “a business been chosen has for an on the basis of a general OSHA search plan administrative for the enforcement of the Act derived passed OSHA, Congress cognizant light itWhen of the fact that in enormity of the inspections of the enforcement task “the number of it undoubtedly would be desirable to have made will for an unforeseeable period, capacity inspection exceed the Com of the force . . . .” Senate Welfare, Legislative History Occupa mittee on Labor and Public of the Safety (Comm. 1970, Cong., Sess., tional and Health Act of 92d 1st 1971). Print Ante, Thus, only- . . 321. the sources .
from neutral whether the is magistrate’s consideration the question inspection schedule from an inspection deviates contemplated officials. by higher agency level up drawn pro- inspection warrant the warrant, the traditional Unlike employers itself for the search protection against no vides violating suspect has no reason the Government who proposition accepts the plainly regulations. The OSHA It reasonable. safety inspections are health and that random public that the determination question Congress’ does not safety hazards health and workplaces free from interest only conduct his business employer’s desire to outweighs the rare instances except in those presence permittees, in the that the probable suspect when the Government has cause law. harbor a violation of the premises by the administrative then, are served purposes, What purports to serve inspection warrant procedure? warrant inspection the employer to inform the that three functions: him lawful limits by statute, to advise authorized person demanding him and to assure inspection, Court, Municipal inspector. Camara entry is an authorized An of these functions 532. examination U. S. little inspection reveals that warrant adds context OSHA perti- protections already by afforded the statute it might benefit slight nent and the additional regulations, constitutional violation provide identify is insufficient to power justify overriding Congress’ judgment inspections is essential. conduct warrantless employer assure the supposed routine, is in fact and that representa- from improperly departed program has not But to responsible officials. inspections tive established would be reduced extent that harassment Secretary’s present necessity obtaining warrant, precisely scheme would have the same effect. enforcement *22 “ representative inspections are conducted 'in accordance upon experience with criteria based accident number ” Ante, employees exposed particular industries.’ at 321 If, present entry premises n. 17. under the to covered scheme, by denied, entry only informing can his gain court superiors seeking administrative of the refusal and order requiring employer inspection. to submit to search is inspector who would like to conduct a nonroutine just as his likely prospect informing to be deterred superiors representations of his intention and of making false process to the court when he seeks compulsory prospect representations to make in an having bad-faith parte ex warrant proceeding. purposes
The other administrative war- two asserted of the adequately existing rant also achieved under the scheme. employer If status of the has doubts about the official himself inspector, adequate opportunity he is reassure given regard entry. inspector’s in this before The OSHA permitting upon the right premises to enter is conditioned statutory presentation appropriate credentials. 29 U. S. C. identify (a)(1). inspector’s name, These credentials state the compliance photo- officer, him as an and contain his OSHA employer If the still has he graph signature. doubts, Usery verify inspector’s authority, make a toll-free call to Service, Godfrey Supply Inc., Brake & F. 2d deny entry presentation (CA8 1976), simply and await the of a court order. employer
The warrant is not needed to inform the inspection. expressly limits of The statute lawful an OSHA inspector may enter all areas in a covered provides that an performed by employee "where work is business inves- employer,” (a)(1), §657 S. C. “to hours and at other reasonable tigate during regular working reasonable limits and in a reasonable man- and within times, pertinent conditions, appa- structures, machines, ner ... all *23 334 . . . .” 29 materials therein equipment, and devices,
ratus, (1977). § 29 CFR (a)(2). also See U. S. C. by Congress power granted inspection that the it is true While not does by the Court required procedure broad, is the warrant the that simply to ensure but power purport to restrict both statute the Since scope. of its employer apprised function, informational perform this regulations pertinent the superfluous. warrant is adds little therefore, warrant, Requiring the the under already provided protection way the the circumstances, In these scheme. enforcement existing obviously In of the formality. view essentially warrant of the safety scheme health and enforcing a cost of enormous guise in the not, this Court should OSHA, dimensions require formalities Amendment, construing the Fourth federal already overtaxed additional merely place an strain resources. obey obligation has Court, like this
Congress, Court past In Amendment. Fourth mandate of the Amendment's broad to the particularly sensitive “has been statutes authorizing .. . ‘reasonableness’ where standard v. Almeida-Sanchez searches.” challenged permitted In dissenting). States, J., 266, S. United (White, example, Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. States United of vehicles stopping challenged the routine respondents away from located checkpoints permanent at aliens check pursuant established checkpoints were border. The operation were location and their statutory authority and rejected re- The Court criteria. administrative governed reasonableness constitutional argument that the spondents’ should be checkpoints of the fixed operation location and ob- The Court in a Camara proceeding. warrant reviewed of the reassuring purposes served of au- manifestations visible served adequately were checkpoints. fixed thority exhibited operation method of location and Moreover, although constitutional critical to the checkpoints fixed were deemed did stops, the Court challenged reasonableness on a based a warrant Patrol to obtain require Border officials operated located checkpoints were showing Indeed, standards. accordance with administrative must be locations checkpoint choice of observed that “[t]he *24 to be officials, of Border Patrol to the discretion largely left that regulations statutes and in accordance with exercised op- checkpoint of [m]any incidents . . . applicable be [and] of such the discretion committed to must be eration also no 13. The had 559-560, at S., officials.” n. responsible allo- those officials difficulty assuming that “unlikely to would be resources limited enforcement cating arbitrarily oppressively where it bears checkpoint a locate Id., at 559. on motorists as a class.” balancing in Congress’ role recognition The Court’s statutes and regulatory various public interest advanced governmental in free from private being arbitrary interest in which, limited to situations intrusion has not been to exclude special power its exercising example, Congress congressional rejected we have not a today, aliens. Until category concerning reasonableness a judgment of commercial While busi- premises.7 regulatory entitled to Fourth Amendment unquestionably nesses are special “recognized business, by we have that a its protection, voluntary may open to intrusions existence, itself nature private in context.” permissible purely would not be regarding rejection legislative judgment the reason The Court’s of a puzzling light inspection program especially in OSHA ableness of the constitutionally finding practices reason recent decisions law enforcement though significantly practices more individual able, even those involved Terry program. See, g., Ohio, e. v. discretion than OSHA Cady 143; Dombrowski, 1; Williams, 407 U. v. 413 U. S. U. S. Adams v. S. Opperman, 433; Dakota U. S. 364. South v. States, 353. 338, United 429 U. S. Leasing Corp. v.
G. M. States, United 397 U. S. Catering Corp. in Colonnade Thus, statutory au of a recognized the reasonableness 72, the Court in alco dealing premises of a caterer thorization power broad noting “Congress has holic beverages, as it liquor laws under the design powers such Id., And 76. at hand.” necessary to meet evils deems Court sustained Biswell, 406 in United States v. U. S. dealers warrantless searches of firearm authority to conduct basis of on the primarily Control Act of 1968 under Gun evaluation congressional the reasonableness interests at stake.8 the deference accorded concludes that Court, however, to situa- Colonnade should be limited Biswell and
Congress regulatory statute evils addressed tions where the industry is industry and that one peculiar specific The Court regulation. long subject has been to Government can it said that a only in those situations be reasons consent will be aware of and who business person engages *25 I the inspections. agree cannot regulatory routine, narrowly should be so congressional judgment due the respect confined. longevity regulatory of a does program
In first the place, the bearing on the reasonableness my judgment, in have not, adequate enforce- inspections necessary to achieve of routine conception of what constitute Congress’ ment of that program. held: The Court system premises that regulatory inspection of business “In the context of a carefully time, scope, legality the search place, in the of limited is authority depends of a statute. ... the valid difficulty where, here, regulatory concluding “We have little in as inspections urgent possibilities of abuse interest, further federal and the privacy inspection impressive dimensions, and the threat to not are may proceed specifically a warrant authorized statute.” without where S., 315, 317. at urgent federal interests need not remain static. The recent vintage public and congressional awareness of dangers posed by safety health and in workplace hazards is not a respect basis according less judgment the considered Biswell, Congress. Indeed, upheld inspection program authorized aby regulatory statute enacted in 1968. The Court noted there regulation of the “[f]ederal interstate traffic in deeply firearms is not as rooted in history is governmental liquor control industry, but close scrutiny of undeniably” this traffic is an urgent federal interest. S.,U. at Thus, 315. critical fact is the congressional determination that federal would regulation further significant public interests, not the date that determination was made.
In I the second place, see no basis for the Court’s conclusion congressional that a determination that a category regula- inspections tory is reasonable only respected need be when is Congress legislating on an basis. The industry-by-industry pertinent inquiry is whether the is program authorized regulatory single statute directed industry, but whether Congress has limited the exercise of the inspection power to premises those commercial where evils at which Biswell, statute directed are to be found. if Thus, had Congress premises authorized of all commercial means restricting illegal as a traffic in firearms, Court would program unreasonable; have found the power upheld because it was tailored to the subject matter of Congress’ proper regulatory exercise power. safety Similarly, OSHA directed at health and in the workplace, inspection power granted hazards only extends to those areas such hazards where likely to be found. *26 Finally, respect the Court would accorded distinguish judgment in Biswell Congress’ ground Colonnade and on the liquor industry that businesses in the firearms engaged “ 'accept the well of burdens as as the benefits their trade In consent Ante, view, such businesses at 313. Court’s would fiction upon while it be placed them, the restrictions consented to subject a to OSHA conclude that businessman consent is fic- however, In safety inspections. fact, routine Biswell, businesses as in Here, in both contexts. as well tional regulations with comply be of and required aware situations, In both their activities. governing business the consent depends upon not validity regulations of the federal statute existence a regulated, those but inter- public that the embodying determination congressional limitation force or Nation’s work est the health interest the businessman’s outweighs firearms traffic illegal those viewing from preventing a Government of the subject matter which relate premises areas his regulation. war- attempt to conduct a
The case us involves an before electrical and area of an working rantless search inspec- such an contractor. The statute authorizes plumbing is limited tion hours. The during reasonable proper exercised its Congress those areas over which has employees authority.9 The is also to which legislative area one Municipal Court, actually v. the Court decided in Camara What require Seattle, 541, not the result it 523, U. S. and See 387 U. S. does residence, today. Camara rather than a business reaches involved a establishment; protection its although the Fourth Amendment extends importance protecting buildings, commercial the central residential was, building course, See privacy is involved in manifest. may establishment, locked warehouse holding but a that a commercial buildings pursuant general to “enter all not be entered to a authorization except dwellings, as often as be neces premises, the interior of carefully sary,” S., to cover more need be extended authority. My holding the See should be grants of view delineated by my narrowly opinion of the dissent influenced favorable confined joined by Harlan and Justices written Mr. Justice Clark Stewart. demonstrate, however, of stare Biswetl the doctrine As Colonnade and today’s govern compel the Court to extend those cases to decisis does not holding. *27 regular any
have access suggestion without work performed or the equipment special used has any claim confidentiality.10 Congress has determined industrial safety urgent federal interest requiring regulation and supervision, and further, that warrantless necessary accomplish safety goals legislation. may question While one pervasive wisdom of govern- oversight mental I industrial decline to life, question Congress’ judgment inspection power necessary is a enforcement device achieving goals a valid exercise of regulatory power.11
I respectfully dissent. 10The pertinent regulation provide Act and protection trade employer. secrets of the 29 U. 664-665; (1977). S. C. 29 CFR 1903.9 §§ § today The decision renders presumptively invalid numerous provisions regulatory in federal statutes. g., (Federal E. 30 U. C. 813 S. § Coal Safety Mine Health 1969); Act §§723, 30 U. C. S. (Federal Safety Metal Nonmetallic Act); Mine 21 U. C. S. (inspection of products). meat and food provisions That some of these apply only single industry, to above, as noted does not alter this fact. And the fact that some “envision resort to federal-court when enforcement entry is refused” is also irrelevant since the program OSHA requires invalidated compulsory process here compliance inspector when a entry. Ante, has been denied at 321.