Question

Business law

A state statute required vehicle dismantlers—persons whose business includes dismantling automobiles and selling the parts—to be licensed and to keep records regarding the vehicles and parts in their possession. The statute also authorized warrantless administrative inspections; that is, without first obtaining a warrant, agents of the state department of motor vehicles or police officers could inspect a vehicle dismantler's license and records, as well as vehicles on the premises. Pursuant to this statute, police officers entered an automobile junkyard and asked to see the owner's license and records. The owner replied that he did not have the documents. The officers inspected the premises and discovered stolen vehicles and parts. Charged with possession of stolen property and unregistered operation as a vehicle dismantler, the junkyard owner argued that the warrantless inspection statute was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court disagreed, reasoning that the junkyard business was a highly regulated industry. On appeal, the highest state court concluded that the statute had no true administrative purpose and impermissibly authorized searches whose only purpose was to discover stolen property. The state appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Should the Court uphold the statute? Discuss.

Answer 1

In the context of the given question, I agree that the Supreme court should uphold the statute.

Step-by-step explanation:

This is because the state must have identified and analysed the need for such a statute, to lower any illegal trade practices and to come down heavily on vehicle dismantler who do not execute their business lawfully by maintaining proper records and following ethical work practices as deemed to be correct by the law.

Since the owner was found guilty of not recording vehicle dismantling records, holding an official dismantler's license and spare parts, the owner cannot challenge the police forces. Also, I feel the trial court did a wrong judgement by supporting the owner and declaring that the statute is unconstitutional. Whatever has been described here is for the law and order of the state, so there is no need to counteract.

Therefore, the Supreme court should dismiss trial court's verdict and uphold and enforce the statute in the interest of the state and public.