Warrantless search of auto salvage yard did not exceed scope of inspection permitted by Oklahoma administrative statutes regulating salvage facilities

SEARCH & SEIZURE United States v. Johnson, No. 04-6303, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. June 1, 2005)(W.D. Oklahoma). Government interlocutory appeal of district court’s suppression of evidence seized under warrantless administrative search of auto salvage yard. HELD: (1) Where police officers lacked probable cause to think any criminal conduct occurred at auto salvage yard, but had only vague suspicion that type of criminal activity Oklahoma administrative inspection scheme was directed toward detecting (i.e., car theft) might have occurred at salvage yard where defendant worked, there was nothing unconstitutional about conducting warrantless administrative search as authorized by Oklahoma statutes regulating auto salvage facilities. (2) Search of locked toolbox during warrantless administrative inspection of auto salvage yard did not exceed scope of search authorized by Oklahoma statutes regulating such facilities. When officers began inspection of salvage yard, stolen vehicle was being driven off premises and there was at least one suspicious motorcycle frame near defendant’s toolbox. Toolbox was large enough to contain license plates and VIN plates. Thus, officers had at least reasonable suspicion that toolbox might contain something relevant to their administrative search. (3) Even if search conducted by officers exceeded scope of search authorized by Oklahoma statute regulating auto salvage facilities, good faith exception to exclusionary rule applies. Officers relied in good faith on administrative inspection statutes as interpreted by Oklahoma courts, and on their objectively reasonable applicability to inspection conducted at auto salvage yard. (4) District court erred in determining administrative search was pretext solely to gather evidence of criminal activity. First, administrative inspection may encompass both administrative and criminal law enforcement purposes. Thus, fact that officers had objectively reasonable basis to suspect they might find stolen cars or car parts does not invalidate inspection. Second, district court improperly focused its inquiry on subjective motivations of officers. Where officers are engaged in a proper administrative search, the officers’ motive is irrelevant. What matters is whether their conduct is objectively reasonable. Read the opinion here.