## Facts

- Joseph Burger operated an automobile junkyard and vehicle-dismantling business in Brooklyn, New York.
- New York law required such businesses to be licensed, keep specified records (“police book”), and make records and premises available for inspection.
- A statute authorized warrantless, unannounced inspections during regular business hours by designated officials, including police officers.
- Police officers entered Burger’s premises to conduct an inspection under the statute, requested his license and required records, and Burger said he had neither.
- The officers inspected vehicles and parts, recorded vehicle identification numbers, checked them against police records, and determined several items were stolen.
- Burger was arrested and charged with possession of stolen property and operating as an unregistered vehicle dismantler.
- The trial court denied suppression of the evidence; the intermediate appellate court affirmed; the state high court reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds; the U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether warrantless inspections of automobile junkyards conducted under a statutory inspection regime fall within the Fourth Amendment exception for administrative inspections of closely regulated industries.
2. Whether an otherwise valid administrative inspection becomes unconstitutional because the regulatory scheme is closely connected to crime detection and yields evidence used in criminal prosecutions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the state high court in a 6–3 decision and upheld the statute and the search.
- The Court held that vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards are part of a closely regulated industry with a reduced expectation of privacy.
- The Court applied a three-part test and concluded the inspection scheme was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- The Court rejected the argument that the inspection was invalid because it could uncover evidence of crime or because police officers conducted it.
- Evidence obtained during the inspection was admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Warrantless administrative inspections of commercial premises may be reasonable when the business is in a closely regulated industry and the inspection regime satisfies constitutional criteria.
- A warrantless inspection program for a closely regulated industry is valid if:
  - it advances a substantial government interest,
  - warrantless inspections are necessary to further the regulatory scheme, and
  - the statute provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant by giving notice and limiting inspector discretion in time, place, and scope.
- A regulatory inspection does not violate the Fourth Amendment merely because it is conducted by police officers, has a close connection to crime detection, or produces evidence used in criminal enforcement, so long as the inspection meets the administrative-search requirements.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld New York’s warrantless junkyard inspection statute as a valid administrative-search regime for a closely regulated industry, finding that it served a substantial interest in combating auto theft, required surprise inspections to be effective, and constrained officer discretion with notice and defined limits that functioned as a substitute for a warrant.


New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987)