United States v. Biswell

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Criminal Procedure
406 U.S. 311 (1972)
Updated
Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentadministrative searchwarrantless inspectionpervasively regulated businessfirearms dealersGun Control Actlicensed dealer

Facts

The Gun Control Act of 1968 authorized entry during business hours onto the premises and storage areas of licensed firearms dealers to inspect required records and firearms or ammunition kept there. Respondent operated a pawn shop and held a federal license to deal in sporting weapons. A city policeman and a federal Treasury agent inspected his books and then requested entry into a locked gun storeroom; after being told that the statute authorized the inspection and being shown the provision, respondent unlocked the room. The agent found and seized two sawed-off rifles that respondent was not licensed to possess, and respondent was later convicted of dealing in firearms without having paid the required special occupational tax.

Issue

Whether the Fourth Amendment barred a warrantless inspection of a federally licensed firearms dealer's locked storeroom when the inspection was specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 923(g). Whether respondent's acquiescence mattered to the search's validity under Bumper v. North Carolina.

Rule

In the context of a regulatory inspection system of business premises that is carefully limited in time, place, and scope, the legality of the search depends not on consent but on the authority of a valid statute. Where regulatory inspections further an urgent federal interest and the possibilities of abuse and the threat to privacy are limited, a specifically authorized warrantless inspection of a pervasively regulated business may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Nora Patel operates Desert Mesa Arms, a federally licensed firearms dealership. During regular business hours, a federal inspector arrives unannounced, identifies herself, cites a statute authorizing inspection of required records and stored firearms on licensed premises, and asks to inspect a back storage closet where inventory is kept.

If Nora objects that the inspector needs a warrant before entering the storage closet, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule permits a warrantless inspection of a pervasively regulated licensed firearms business when the inspection is specifically authorized by a valid statute and carefully limited in time, place, and scope. The search's legality does not depend on consent, probable cause, or a warrant in that setting.