## Facts

- Trinity Industries, Inc. operated a Sharonville, Ohio facility manufacturing tanks and pressure vessels.
- An employee filed a formal complaint alleging electrical hazards involving portable equipment, unsecured compressed-gas cylinders without valve caps, and oil-slick floors and obstructed aisles.
- OSHA sought Trinity’s consent to inspect; Trinity refused.
- OSHA applied to a federal magistrate judge for an administrative warrant seeking (1) a complaint-based inspection and (2) conditional authority for a comprehensive (“wall-to-wall”) inspection under a preexisting administrative scheduling plan (CPL 2.45A).
- The magistrate issued the warrant authorizing the complaint inspection and permitting a comprehensive inspection if plan criteria were satisfied.
- OSHA reviewed Trinity’s records and calculated a lost-workday injury rate of 13.6 (compared to a national average of 4.2), triggering a comprehensive inspection under the plan.
- After conducting the broader inspection, OSHA issued multiple citations with proposed penalties.
- Trinity contested the citations and moved pre-hearing to suppress all inspection-derived evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds.
- An ALJ denied suppression; the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission affirmed; Trinity petitioned for judicial review limited to the suppression issue.

## Issues

1. Whether an administrative inspection warrant authorizing a complaint inspection and a conditional comprehensive inspection satisfied Fourth Amendment particularity and scope requirements.
2. Whether OSHA’s comprehensive inspection selection criteria under a preexisting administrative plan (including injury-rate data) constituted “reasonable legislative or administrative standards” for an administrative search.
3. Whether alleged defects in OSHA’s warrant application or execution rendered the inspection unreasonable, requiring suppression.
4. Whether the exclusionary rule would require suppression in OSHA enforcement proceedings if a Fourth Amendment violation were shown.

## Decision

- The court denied Trinity’s petition for review and enforced the Commission’s order.
- The court held the warrant was valid and sufficiently particular in describing the place and the nature of the authorized inspections.
- The court upheld the warrant’s conditional authorization for a comprehensive inspection because it was expressly tied to objective, preexisting plan criteria.
- The court found OSHA satisfied the warrant’s conditions before conducting the full-scope inspection and did not establish any Fourth Amendment violation warranting suppression.
- Because no constitutional violation was shown, the court affirmed denial of Trinity’s suppression motion without needing to decide broader limits on exclusion in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative workplace inspections generally require a warrant, which may rest on either specific evidence of a violation or a neutral administrative plan using reasonable, objective selection criteria.
- Fourth Amendment particularity for administrative warrants is satisfied when the warrant adequately identifies the premises and the authorized inspection’s nature and limits, even if the inspection is broader than a complaint inquiry.
- A warrant may permit a comprehensive inspection contingent on satisfaction of preexisting, neutral plan criteria, provided the contingency is applied as written and not left to unguided discretion.
- Use of objective injury-rate data and industry classifications can supply neutral standards for selecting establishments for comprehensive inspection.
- Suppression is not available absent a demonstrated Fourth Amendment violation in the warrant’s issuance or execution.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld OSHA’s use of a single administrative warrant authorizing both a complaint-based inspection and a conditional comprehensive inspection under a neutral scheduling plan, concluding the inspections were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the Commission properly refused to suppress the resulting evidence.


Trinity Indus., Inc. v. OSHRC, 16 F.3d 1455 (6th Cir. 1994)