Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco

Supreme Court of the United States · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentAdministrative SearchesFourth Amendmentadministrative searchhousing code inspectionwarrantless inspectionprobable cause

Facts

A San Francisco housing inspector entered an apartment building to conduct a routine annual inspection for Housing Code violations and was told that appellant was using part of his ground-floor leasehold as a personal residence. The inspector twice demanded entry to appellant's premises without a warrant, and appellant refused each time because no search warrant had been obtained. On a third visit, inspectors informed appellant that § 503 of the Housing Code gave authorized employees a right to enter buildings at reasonable times upon presentation of credentials, but appellant again refused entry without a warrant. He was then charged under § 507 with refusing to permit a lawful inspection.

Issue

May a city constitutionally prosecute a resident for refusing to permit a routine housing-code inspection of his private dwelling when inspectors sought entry without a warrant and without a showing of probable cause to believe that this particular dwelling contained code violations? More broadly, does the Fourth Amendment require a warrant for such routine administrative inspections, and if so, what kind of probable cause is required?

Rule

Administrative inspections of private dwellings for municipal health, safety, and housing-code enforcement are significant intrusions protected by the Fourth Amendment and generally may not be conducted without a warrant, absent consent or a traditionally recognized emergency. For routine area inspections, probable cause to issue a warrant exists when reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting the inspection are satisfied with respect to the particular dwelling; such probable cause need not rest on specific knowledge of code violations in that dwelling.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a city housing inspector went door-to-door in a scheduled neighborhood sweep of row houses to check compliance with the local housing code. When tenant Elena Ruiz refused entry to her leased home because the inspector had no warrant, the city charged her under an ordinance making refusal of a housing inspection a misdemeanor.

Is the prosecution constitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that routine administrative inspections of private dwellings are significant Fourth Amendment intrusions. Even though the purpose is code enforcement rather than gathering criminal evidence, absent consent or emergency the inspection generally requires a warrant. A resident cannot constitutionally be convicted for refusing warrantless entry in those circumstances. (Derived from Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco (n.d.).)