## Facts

- The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), through the Labor Commissioner, investigates wage-and-hour compliance and may subpoena employer records that state law requires employers to keep.
- Jay S. Bulmash, acting as trustee, employed attendants/caretakers for his sister.
- A wage complaint alleged violations concerning those caretakers, including failure to pay lawful wages.
- Deputy Labor Commissioner Donald C. Craib issued an administrative subpoena duces tecum directing Bulmash to appear at the DLSE office and produce three years of records showing the caretakers’ names, addresses, and wages.
- Bulmash did not appear and did not produce the records.
- Craib petitioned the superior court to enforce the subpoena; Bulmash opposed enforcement under the Fourth Amendment (lack of probable cause) and the Fifth Amendment (risk of self-incrimination due to possible penalties, including criminal sanctions).
- The superior court ordered compliance; the Court of Appeal reversed; the Supreme Court of California granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause before a court may enforce an administrative subpoena duces tecum seeking wage-and-hour records employers are legally required to maintain.
2. Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination permits an employer to refuse compliance with a court order enforcing such a subpoena for statutorily required business records.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal and directed reinstatement of the superior court’s order enforcing the subpoena.
- The court held that probable cause is not required to enforce an administrative subpoena issued for a lawful regulatory purpose; the subpoena must seek information relevant to an authorized inquiry and describe the requested records with reasonable specificity.
- The court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not excuse production of wage-and-hour records that employers are required by statute to maintain under a valid regulatory scheme.
- The court rejected any categorical distinction between individual and corporate employers for applying these standards to required wage-and-hour records.

## Legal Principles

- An administrative subpoena in a regulatory investigation need not satisfy criminal probable-cause standards; enforcement is proper when the agency acts within its authority, the demand is sufficiently definite, and the material sought is reasonably relevant to an authorized purpose.
- There is no reasonable expectation of privacy against compelled disclosure of records required to be kept, and subject to subpoena, under a lawful regulatory scheme.
- Under the required-records doctrine, the Fifth Amendment does not protect records when (1) the recordkeeping serves a legitimate regulatory purpose, (2) the requirement is not directed at inherently criminal activity or a suspect class, and (3) the records involve minimal disclosure of information customarily kept in ordinary business operations.
- Employers must comply with judicial enforcement orders for production of statutorily required wage-and-hour records, notwithstanding possible exposure to civil or criminal penalties for underlying violations.

## Conclusion

The court required compliance with the DLSE subpoena because administrative subpoenas for statutorily required wage-and-hour records are enforceable without probable cause and are not barred by the Fifth Amendment required-records doctrine, even when the employer is an individual rather than a corporation.


Craib v. Bulmash, 777 P.2d 1120 (Cal. 1989)