|
|
Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (1984)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (1984)
Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc. No. 82-1684 Argued November 29, 1983 Decided January 17, 1984 464 U.S. 408
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Syllabus
The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is authorized by § 11(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to investigate and gather data regarding wages, hours, and other conditions of employment to determine whether an employer is violating the Act, and by § 9 to subpoena witnesses and documentary evidence relating to any matter under investigation. Pursuant to these provisions, a Department of Labor official, upon entering appellee motel and restaurant, served an administrative subpoena duces tecum on one of appellee’s employees, directing the employee to appear at the regional Wage and Hour Office with certain payroll and sales records. Appellee refused to comply with the subpoena and sought declaratory and injunctive relief in Federal District Court, claiming that the subpoena constituted an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court held that, although the Secretary had complied with the applicable FLSA provisions in issuing the subpoena, enforcement of the subpoena would violate the Fourth Amendment because the Secretary had not previously obtained a judicial warrant.
Held: The subpoena duces tecum did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, controlling. An entry into the public lobby of a motel and restaurant for the purpose of serving an administrative subpoena is not the sort of governmental act that is forbidden by that Amendment. Here, the subpoena itself did not authorize either entry or inspection of appellee’s premises, but merely directed appellee to produce certain wage and hour records, and no nonconsensual entry into areas not open to the public was made. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, and Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, distinguished. While a subpoenaed employer, in an action in federal district court, may question the reasonableness of a subpoena before suffering any penalties for refusing to comply with it, the available defenses do not include the right to insist upon a judicial warrant as a condition precedent to a valid subpoena. Pp. 413-416.
Reversed.
REHNQUIST J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (1984) in 464 U.S. 408 464 U.S. 409. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AQDPU6A257YPP3I.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (1984), in 464 U.S. 408, page 464 U.S. 409. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AQDPU6A257YPP3I.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (1984). cited in 1984, 464 U.S. 408, pp.464 U.S. 409. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AQDPU6A257YPP3I.
|