New York v. Burger - Research Paper Example

The respondent in this case is the owner of a junkyard and his business includes dismantling of automobiles and selling the parts. The junk yard is an open lot without buildings and is surrounded by a metal fence. On the day the search was conducted police officers from the Auto Crimes division entered the respondents junk yard and conducted an inspection pursuant to Section 415-a5 of the New York vehicle and Traffic law. The officers from the division conduct similar searches on 5 to 10 vehicle dismantlers on a given day.

When the officers entered the respondent’s yard, they asked to see his license and a police book he was required to keep. The respondent told the officers that he didn’t have either the license or the police book and the officers declared their intentions to conduct a search under section 415-a5. The respondent did not object and the officers took some Vehicle Identification Numbers from the parts in the yard and compared them against the police computer. Upon comparison of the VIN the officers determined that some of the parts were stolen and consequently arrested the respondent for being in possession of stolen items and operating a vehicle dismantling business without the required license (Bierman, 1995).

The respondent sought to suppress the evidence obtained from the inspection on the ground that section 415-a5, which authorized the search was unconstitutional. The court in denying the motion to suppress the evidence observed that motor vehicle dismantling business is a pervasively regulated business and warrantless administrative inspection was appropriate. Additionally, the court observed that the statute was appropriately limited in time, place and scoop and that where the officers had a reasonable reason to believe that some of the parts in the yard were stolen, they could arrest the respondent and seize the property without the need of a warrant.

The appellate Division also