Introduction
NEW YORK v. BURGER, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) 482 U.S. 691 is a leading case on the American criminal justice system. This paper intends to discuss the abovementioned case in detail along with the facts, issues, and findings of this case.
Brief Facts
Brooklyn based Respondent used to own a junkyard. He was in the business of dismantling automobiles and selling the dismantled parts. Police Officers of New York City department suspected his business and rushed at his premises on 17th November 1982. Police officers were in civil dress, and they wanted to conduct an inspection of the premises. Police officers asked for the Burger’s license to conduct this business and also demanded the record book wherein all the records of vehicles and dismantle parts were maintained (Law School Case Briefs, 1987).
The respondent replied that he had no license, and he does not maintain any record of dismantled vehicles or parts. Police officials started inspecting the premises under their capacity and as per the New York Vehicle & Traffic Law § 415(a) (5).The officials found some evidences that suggested that the respondent was in possession of some vehicles and parts that were stolen. The respondent was charged for possessing stolen property as well as for conducting the business without a valid registration (ProCon: ACLU, 1987).
Respondent was arrested and produced before the court of law where he pleaded that the search and the said statute was unconstitutional. The court, however, rejected his arguments and denied his motion that was affirmed by the appellate division also. The New York court of appeals however, reversed the earlier decision and concluded that the New York statute violated the norms of fourth amendment’s provision that prevents each and every unreasonable searches and seizures (Champion, 2005)
The New York court observed that the search, seizure and arrest by the New York state police officials was illegal and also it violated the provisions of the fourth amendment of the US constitution. The court directed the state to prevent such practices that violate the privacy and civil rights of citizens. The court further observed that such searches and seizures violate the rights of people to conduct their livelihood.
Synopsis of rule of law
Warrantless searches of commercial places are permitted only when the commercial place is part of a regulated industry, or a matter of substantial government interest, or such inspections are necessary. Two fundamental caveats police officers should keep in their mind are: they should inform the business owner that the search is going to be made under provisions of the law, and the officers should use their discretion in the limited manner while inspecting (New York V. Burger, 1987).
Issue
The main issue, involved in this case was whether the warrantless inspection of the junkyard in accordance with the New York statute that permits the inspection, constitutes an unreasonable inspection and seizure that violates provisions of the fourth amendment of the American constitution (Case Briefs, 1987).
Apart from this leading issue, some other questions before the Supreme Court were whether it was ethical to bring fourth amendment of the American constitution in this case. It was also to be looked into that whether fourth amendment provides any protection from searches and seizures when the same is related to the businesses. It was also to be decided that whether automobile dismantling and theft are protected by the provisions of the fourth amendment of the American constitution.
The Supreme Court verdict
The New York state moved into the Supreme Court against the order of New York court. Every fact and related laws were thoroughly discussed. The petitioner argued that the lower court has ignored some very relevant law and material facts while deciding the matter. It was pleaded that the said search was very legal and did not violate the fourth amendment of the American constitution (Signorelli, 2011).
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the said search was completely against the ideas of the fourth amendment of the US constitution that ensures the right of privacy and liberty to operate business and prevents any illegal search, seizure and arrest. It was argued by the respondent that the search of the junkyard by the police officials was not only illegal but also it violated the ideas of the American constitution (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987).
The verdict was passed by the Supreme Court after considering every aspect of the case. The decision of the judges was passed with a dissenting opinion, because all judges were not agreed on the same point. Six judges gave their opinion in favor of the state while three judges disagreed with the majority opinion. The earlier decision of the lower court was reversed by saying that the New York statute that permits warrantless inspections of vehicle dismantling and junkyard does not amount to an unreasonable inspection that violates the fourth amendment of American constitution. The American Supreme Court directed the petitioner to proceed further in the course of its duties (New York v. Burger, U.S.).
Dissenting judges suggested that there is a violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution in the above said search, seizure and the arrest of the respondent. The police officials cross their limitation either deliberately or unknowingly. Such instances may damage the privacy. It was observed by the dissenting judges that such acts may also damage the civil liberty of individuals. Though this opinion did not dominate but the points that they raised are very relevant.
This case is considered one of leading cases on the criminal justice as well on the civil liberty. This case is also a milestone in the functioning of the state and the law implementing agencies. The supreme court interpreted the limitations and jurisdiction of the state and individuals in a realistic and speaking manner. There is a difference in conducting the business and committing the theft. This very fact is required to be looked into while taking any action on such issues.
Having observed the succinct analysis of the abovementioned case, it can be concluded that the US supreme court delivered and excellent verdict. It is not possible for any state to spare auto thief in the name of privacy and civil liberty. There are certain exceptions of the constitutional provisions that deal with the civil liberty and privacy of citizens. Police and other law implementing agencies should be given ample rights to conduct searches, seizures and arrests in order to maintain law and order in the society.
References
Champion, D. J. (2005). The American Dictionary of Criminal Justice: Key Terms and Major Court Cases. Oxford: Scarecrow Press.
Court, U. S. (1987). New York V. Burger: Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York. USA: U.S. Supreme Court.
Law School Case Briefs. (1987). Retrieved April 15, 2014, from www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net: http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/11/new-york-v-burger-case-brief.html
New York V. Burger. (1987). Retrieved April 15, 2014, from law.uark.edu: http://law.uark.edu/documents/2012/08/Bailey-New-York-v.-Burger.pdf
New York v. Burger, U.S. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2014, from www.prenhall.com: http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/bp/app/phblaw/html/cases/cases_html/CASE07_4.html
ProCon: ACLU. (1987, June 19). Retrieved April 15, 2014, from aclu.procon.org: http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=2399
Signorelli, W. P. (2011). Criminal Law, Procedure, and Evidence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
