Question

Under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Secretary of Transportation regulates the trans- portation of hazardous materials. The regulatory scheme includes warrantless, unannounced inspec- tions of property and records involved in transport- ing hazardous materials. A propane gas dealer contested the constitutionality of surprise, warrant- less inspections of its transport facilities. The govern- ment sued to force such inspections. Was that position upheld? [U.S. v. V-l Oil Co., 63 F.3d 909, 9th Cir. (1995)]

Answer 1

U.S. v. V-l Oil Co., 63 F.3d 909, 9th Cir. (1995)

Constitutionality of surprise, warrantless inspections of transport facilities:

The position of the United States government was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Supreme Court found it was necessary for the FRA inspectors to pay surprise, warrantless inspections of transport facilities that were conveying hazardous materials, stating that the regulatory scheme was enough warrant. It therefore dismissed the petition of V-l Oil Co., thereby upholding the government's position. Specifically, it noted that the government has a substantial interest in regulating the transportation and temporary storage of hazardous materials to protect life and property and that unannounced inspections ensure satisfactory enforcement of the regulatory scheme. The court further stated that "if inspection is to be effective and serve as a credible deterrent, unannounced, even frequent, inspections are essential." This is because "advanced notice of inspections could permit V-1 to temporarily correct violations and frustrate enforcement efforts."