A number of possible administrative searches might be necessary in the event of a naturally occurring emergency. During a pandemic outbreak, officials might need to test various private food or water sources, such as livestock or water bottling plants. A flood or an earthquake might precipitate a rise in building inspections to examine the structural integrity and electrical soundness of various structures.

For more on administrative searches in the context of a bioterrorist attack, consider the following excerpt (from the atomic/dirty bomb hypothetical outlined on p. 266), which – although written in the context of a nuclear attack – analyzes the issue fairly succinctly:

Because of the danger posed by an atomic bomb, it might be thought that a search without probable cause could be undertaken by authorities charged with protecting the public against dangers to public health and safety. That power, upheld under the “administrative search” doctrine of Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, has been used to ensure compliance with local housing and health regulations and has been permitted because such searches normally involve only a minimal invasion of privacy. Administrative searches have been described generally as a means of ensuring compliance with such matters as occupancy permits and proper wiring standards. By contrast, our hypothetical involves a sudden need to conduct a wide-ranging and probably invasive search of the homes in a particular area for a dangerous weapon. In some contexts, administrative searches to protect public health may be quite intrusive on individual homeowners. For example, in Frank v. Maryland, the Court upheld a search of a home that the health inspector believed was infested with rats. The Court emphasized that the search did not have the potential to yield evidence for a criminal prosecution, and that the timing and scope of the search were “strictly limited” according to the circumstances giving rise to the search. Thus, it might be argued by analogy to Frank that homeowners must necessarily submit to a search for a weapon of mass destruction [or biological weapon] that may be secreted on their premises. This argument might have some force if the search procedures were necessarily as constrained as those in the Maryland health case and if the objects were only interdiction and removal to ensure safety so that no criminal charge could follow. But, of course, these conditions do not necessarily follow from our hypothetical. The time and manner of search for a weapon of mass destruction could not be restricted to daylight hours. Nor could it be assumed that no criminal prosecution would follow if such a weapon were found. A prosecution perhaps would not occur if the weapon had been hidden in the home of an innocent; but if the homeowner were culpable, or potentially so…….

The post Critical Thinking (p. 264) – Administrative Searches and Emergencies appeared first on essay-paper.