In an emergency situation, the damage might already be done if an administrative agent has to wait for the warrant. An emergency is anything that is an immediate danger to public safety and health. Therefore courts have found it constitutionally reasonable to allow warrantless inspections in such a situation (Weaver, R. L., 2013). Throughout the history, we have seen court cases holding the emergency exception to administrative search and seizure. According to Rothstein, M. A. (1979), in Camara V. The Municipal Court City and County, the court even mentioned that though they might be rare the following cases proved to be some examples of emergency situation cases.
North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago (1908)
A Chicago …show more content…
Massachusetts in 1904. During an outbreak of smallpox, the state of Massachusetts required compulsory vaccination against the disease. Jacobson refused to receive the vaccine because he believed vaccines were unsound and they made him sick before. He was fined and he refused to pay the fee stating that compulsory vaccination violated his rights. He argued that he was free to care for his own body as he wishes. Both the Massachusetts State Constitution and the Massachusetts Supreme Court rejected his claim. He made an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which held the decision of the state. The United States Supreme Court concluded that the state was allowed to use its police power to restraint individuals for the common good. In this case the smallpox outbreak is a justified emergency …show more content…
After three attempts to enter the premises with no consent and no warrant, a complaint was filed against the resident by the health department and he was arrested for code violation. The defendant filed a suit against the State stating a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments violation. The state rejected his claim relying on the Frank V. Maryland case in which a conviction was upheld in a similar situation. He then made an appeal at the United States Supreme Court. Contrary to the Frank V. Maryland case, the US Supreme Court ruled against the state’s decision and concluded that although the inspection was reasonable, it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to charge the defendant for refusing entry without consent. The inspectors should have sought a warrant when consent was