Running head: NEW YORK VS BURGER

New York vs Burger

Business Law 531
April 27, 2015

NEW YORK VS BURGER

New York vs Burger

In the United States, The Bill of Rights was created as an aid to help protect the rights of
the citizens of this country. The fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights was written in to protect
citizens from unreasonable search and seizures and that any warrants had to be sanctioned and
supported. Where there is a fine line today is how this is applied with a commercial business
operating in a regulated industry. On November 17, 1982, Four Police Officers entered Joseph
Burgers junkyard in Brooklyn New York without a warrant and conducted a search (New York
v. Burger, 1987). The case of New York v. Burger (1987) states that Mr. Burger did not have
proper documentation when requested by the police officers but does give the police the okay to
conduct an unwarranted search?
Issue
Whether the warrantless search of an automobile junkyard, conducted pursuant to a
statute authorizing such a search, falls within the exception to the warrant requirement for
administrative inspections of pervasively regulated industries(New York V. Burger, 2015).
According to Findlaw For Legal Professionals (2015), four police officers searched Burgers
junkyard pursuant to N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 415(a)(5) (para. 12), which required junkyard
owners to maintain records for routine spontaneous inspections by police officers and state
agents. The respondent did not have the proper documentation of vehicles as required by law.
The officers announced their intention to inspect the lot, and took down several VINs. In the
course of their search, officers discovered stolen vehicles and parts in respondent's junkyard.
Rule

NEW YORK VS BURGER

New York's regulatory scheme satisfies the criteria necessary to make reasonable the warrantless
inspections conducted pursuant to the inspection statute. First, the State has a substantial interest in
regulating the vehicle-dismantling and automobile junkyard industry because motor vehicle theft has
increased in the State and because the problem of theft is associated with such industry. Second,
regulation of the industry reasonably serves the State's substantial interest in eradicating automobile theft,
and warrantless administrative inspections pursuant to the statute are necessary to further the regulatory
scheme. Third, the statute provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. It informs a
business operator that regular inspections will be made, and also sets forth the scope of the inspection,
notifying him as to how to comply with the statute and as to who is authorized to conduct an inspection.
Moreover, the "time, place, and scope" of the inspection is limited to impose appropriate restraints upon
the inspecting officers' discretion. Pp. 482 U. S. 708-712.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=482&invol=691

Application
The Fourth Amendment bans only unreasonable search and seizure and although the
search of Mr. Burgers place of business was conducted without a warrant the courts have a long
history of allowing searches of commercial property of closely regulated businesses. In the case
of Colonnade Corp vs United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such searches were legal
even if authorities had to force entry of a regulated facility (United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S.
311 1972). The Courts decision was based on the fact that alcohol sales were a highly regulated
activity. Again in United States vs Biswell the court reaffirmed its 1970 decision by upholding

NEW YORK VS BURGER

the search of Mr. Biswells store room for guns basing tier decision on the fact that firearms sales
was also a highly regulated business (Colonnade Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 1970). In
New York vs Burger the state holds that because the junkyard and automotive disassembly
industry is highly regulated at the state level the unwarranted search of Mr. Burgers facility was
legal and that is was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment (New York v. Burger, 482 US. 691
1987).
Conclusion

NEW YORK VS BURGER

References
United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=406&invol=311
Colonnade Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (1970). Retrieved from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=397&invol=72
New York v. Burger. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminalprocedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-andsearch-and-seizure/new-york-v-burger-2/
New York v. Burger, 482 US. 691 (1987). Taken from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=691.