People v. Hutchings
This text of 69 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 33 (People v. Hutchings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Supp.35]*Supp.35Opinion
The People appeal from the dismissal of a misdemeanor complaint that charges a violation of Labor Code section 1174.1 The trial court found that the charging statutory provisions on their face, are unconstitutional. We agree.
Steven Kramer, an employee of the Division of Industrial Welfare, State of California, told respondent, Jess Hutchings, that he wanted to examine his records relating to the employee payroll. Respondent agreed and on three separate occasions between March 13, 1975, and July 18, 1975, Kramer reviewed the records. At the last meeting Mr. Kramer asked to remain in respondent’s home beyond the scheduled meeting time to continue the record review. Respondent refused because he had scheduled other business and did not want Mr. Kramer to remain in his home alone. On July 28, 1975, the Division of Industrial Welfare issued a subpoena requiring production of the records. Respondent refused to comply with the subpoena and this misdemeanor accusation followed.
[Supp.36]*Supp.36Labor Code section 1174, subdivision (b), authorizes an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In See v. City of Seattle (1967) 387 U.S. 541 [18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S.Ct. 1737], the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused to permit a warrantless inspection of his business premises to check compliance with a city fire code. The court acknowledged that a demand to inspect premises or records may be issued “in the form of an administrative subpoena, [but] it may not be made and enforced by the inspector in the field, and the subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of the reasonableness of the demand prior to suffering penalties for refusing to comply.” (At pp. 544-545 [18 L.Ed.2d at p. 947].)
In California, the judicial review needed to enforce the subpoena must be obtained by the state agency by petition to the superior court (Gov. Code, §§ 11187, 11188; Brovelli v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 524 [15 Cal.Rptr. 630, 364 P.2d 462]; Fielder v. Berkeley Properties Co. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 30 [99 Cal.Rptr. 791]). A warrantless search is permitted in those instances where prompt inspections in emergency situations are required so that the governmental purpose will not be frustrated (Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) 387 U.S. 523 [18 L.Ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727]; People v. Hyde (1974) 12 Cal.3d 158, 168 [115 Cal.Rptr. 358, 524 P.2d 830]) or where it is necessary to regulate businesses that are likely to give rise to public danger or well known evils (People v. Lisner (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 637 [57 Cal.Rptr. 674]; People v. Grey (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 456 [100 Cal.Rptr. 245]; People v. Conway (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 875, 891 [117 Cal.Rptr. 251]).
The statute here is not so restricted. It applies to “Every person employing labor in this state.” We therefore find Labor Code section 1174, subdivision (b) and section 1175, subdivision (b) are unconstitutional on their face, and as applied to this defendant.
Affirmed.
Before Conyers, P. J., Focht, J., and Welsh, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
69 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 33, 138 Cal. Rptr. 584, 1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 1486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hutchings-calappdeptsuper-1977.