## Facts

- OSHA, acting through the Secretary of Labor (Secretary), sought to conduct health and safety inspections for possible violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act at two separate worksites: one operated by Trinity Industries, Inc. (Trinity) and one operated by Mosher Steel Co. (Mosher).
- The Secretary applied to federal magistrates for administrative inspection warrants for each worksite.
- The warrant applications stated that the inspections were part of OSHA’s programmed inspection plans, not triggered by employee complaints or specific evidence of violations at either site.
- Magistrates issued warrants authorizing OSHA to inspect both worksites.
- Trinity and Mosher refused to allow OSHA inspectors to enter under the warrants.
- The Secretary petitioned the district courts to hold both companies in civil contempt for failing to comply with the warrants.
- Mosher ultimately permitted the inspection to go forward but appealed, maintaining that the warrant application lacked sufficient probable cause.
- Trinity continued to resist. The district court ordered Trinity to allow the inspection; Trinity delayed compliance for one day, and the district court imposed a monetary sanction for that delay.
- Trinity appealed the order and sanction. The appeals involving Trinity and Mosher were consolidated in the Eleventh Circuit.
- On appeal, both companies argued that the Secretary’s warrant applications were too conclusory to establish administrative probable cause because they did not provide enough detail to show the worksites were selected under “specific, neutral criteria.”

## Issues

1. Whether OSHA’s warrant applications for programmed inspections provided enough information for a magistrate to find administrative probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether, given the validity of the warrants, the district courts properly enforced them through civil contempt orders and monetary sanctions for noncompliance or delay.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held that the warrant applications were sufficient to establish administrative probable cause for OSHA inspections conducted under a programmed inspection plan.
- The court concluded that the materials presented to the magistrates provided enough information to allow an independent determination that Trinity and Mosher were selected for inspection under specific, neutral criteria rather than by arbitrary choice.
- Because the warrants were valid, the court affirmed the district courts’ enforcement of the warrants through civil contempt.
- The court also upheld the monetary sanction imposed on Trinity for delaying compliance after being ordered to permit the inspection.

## Legal Principles

- For OSHA administrative inspection warrants, “probable cause” does not require individualized suspicion of a violation; it may be satisfied by showing that the inspection is pursuant to a reasonable administrative plan.
- A warrant application must provide enough information for the issuing magistrate to determine that the targeted workplace was selected under specific, neutral criteria and not in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.
- When an employer refuses to comply with a valid OSHA inspection warrant, a district court may enforce the warrant through civil contempt and coercive monetary sanctions to secure compliance.

## Conclusion

In re Trinity Industries, Inc. holds that OSHA may obtain inspection warrants based on programmed inspection plans without specific complaints, so long as the warrant materials enable a magistrate to determine the employer was chosen under specific, neutral criteria; and it affirms the use of civil contempt and monetary sanctions to enforce valid inspection warrants when employers refuse or delay compliance.


In re Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485 (1989)