387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967)
Roland Camara, lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building in San Francisco, faced criminal charges under the city's Housing Code for refusing to allow municipal inspectors to enter his residence without a search warrant.1 On November 6, 1963, an inspector from the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered the building to conduct a routine annual inspection for possible code violations.2 The building manager told the inspector that Camara was using the rear of his leasehold as a personal residence, which the occupancy permit did not authorize.3 The inspector confronted Camara and demanded entry to inspect the premises, but Camara refused because the inspector lacked a warrant.4
The inspector returned on November 8 without a warrant, and Camara again denied access.5 A citation was then mailed ordering Camara to appear at the district attorney's office.6 When he failed to appear, two inspectors returned on November 22 and informed him that Section 503 of the Housing Code required him to permit entry at reasonable times upon presentation of proper credentials.7 Camara still refused without a warrant.8 A complaint was filed charging him with violating Section 507 by refusing to permit a lawful inspection.9 He was arrested on December 2 and released on bail.10
Camara's demurrer to the criminal complaint was denied in the municipal court.11 He then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in California Superior Court, alleging that the ordinance authorizing the warrantless inspection was unconstitutional on its face.12 The Superior Court denied the writ.13 The District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing.14 Camara had properly raised and obtained consideration of the federal constitutional questions in the state courts.15
The inspection program operated under Section 86(3) of the San Francisco Municipal Code, which required apartment house operators to pay an annual license fee that partly defrayed the cost of periodic inspections.16 The Bureau of Housing Inspection conducted these inspections at least once a year and as often thereafter as deemed necessary.17 The permit of occupancy for the building was not issued until the license was obtained.18
Whether the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a warrant for administrative inspections of private residences conducted pursuant to municipal housing code enforcement programs?19
The Fourth Amendment provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.20 The basic purpose of this Amendment, as recognized in countless decisions of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.21 The Fourth Amendment thus gives concrete expression to a right of the people which is basic to a free society.22 As such, the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.23 Except in a few carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is unreasonable unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.24
Yes. The inspections were routine and not in response to any emergency or specific complaint about Camara's premises.25 The inspectors relied on Section 503 of the Housing Code, which authorized entry without a warrant upon presentation of credentials.26 This system left Camara subject to the discretion of the officials without the opportunity for review by a neutral magistrate.27 The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest.28
The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for administrative inspections of private residences conducted pursuant to municipal housing code enforcement programs.29 Camara had a constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to search and could not constitutionally be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection.30
Whether probable cause to issue a warrant authorizing an area-wide code enforcement inspection may be based on reasonable legislative or administrative standards applied to the area as a whole, rather than on specific knowledge of violations within the particular dwelling to be inspected?31
In cases in which the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant to search be obtained, probable cause is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness.32 To apply this standard, it is obviously necessary first to focus upon the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen.33 The area inspection is a reasonable search of private property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.34 Therefore, probable cause to issue a warrant to inspect must exist if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling.35 Such standards, which will vary with the municipal program being enforced, may be based upon the passage of time, the nature of the building, or the condition of the entire area, but they will not necessarily depend upon specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling.36 If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant.37
Yes. The inspection program was a routine annual inspection under the San Francisco Municipal Code for the building as part of area-wide enforcement to secure city-wide compliance with minimum physical standards.38 The agency's decision to conduct the area inspection was based on its appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole, not on its knowledge of conditions in each particular building such as Camara's leasehold.39 The standards were based on the passage of time, as the code required inspections at least once a year and as often thereafter as deemed necessary.40
The primary governmental interest at stake is to prevent even the unintentional development of conditions which are hazardous to public health and safety.41 This approach gives full recognition to the competing public and private interests at stake and best fulfills the historic purpose behind the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government invasions of privacy.42
Probable cause to issue a warrant authorizing an area-wide code enforcement inspection may be based on reasonable legislative or administrative standards applied to the area as a whole, rather than on specific knowledge of violations within the particular dwelling to be inspected.43