Court Upholds Warrantless Searches of Bars

A California Court of Appeal on Thursday upheld the power of state liquor-control agents to conduct warrantless searches of bars when they suspect illegal drug activity.

The three-member panel unanimously rejected a claim that such searches were unconstitutional, ruling that investigators have broad latitude to inspect closely regulated commercial businesses, where there is less expectation of privacy than in a home.

The court noted that state law mandates the revocation of liquor licenses of establishments that knowingly permit illicit drug sales, reflecting the Legislature’s belief that such activity represents a public safety threat that must be combatted vigorously.

“Violations of the law that can be quickly concealed, such as the sale of contraband, can only be deterred by frequent and unannounced inspections,” Appellate Justice J. Anthony Kline wrote for the court.

Under state law, agents of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control have long been entitled to make unannounced inspections of licensee’s premises to enforce liquor regulations--but their authority to also look for drug activity knowingly permitted by licensees had come under recent attack.

Thursday’s ruling was welcomed by state Deputy Atty. Gen. David D. Salmon as an important reaffirmation of the authority of the department to curb narcotics sales in licensed bars in California.

“This power is necessary to help control this kind of social problem, and we’re very gratified to receive it,” Salmon said. “Without it, our ability would be considerably limited.”

Attorneys for a bar owner who challenged the search at issue in the case were not available for comment. Unless Thursday’s ruling is overturned on appeal to the state Supreme Court, it will become binding on trial courts throughout California.

The case arose after state liquor-control agents, acting on an anonymous tip, found 22 bindles of cocaine in the safe of the My House bar in San Francisco during a search of the premises in February, 1988. The owner, Lee Stewart Paulson, was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to 90 days in jail.

In an appeal, Paulson challenged the validity of his conviction, contending that the agents exceeded their authority under state statutes and that their warrantless action violated the constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. ABC investigators are empowered only to inspect for violations of liquor-control regulations, not search for illicit drugs, he asserted.

Kline, in an opinion joined by Appellate Justices John E. Benson and J. Clinton Peterson, rejected Paulson’s claims, pointing out that both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have approved warrantless searches of the premises of liquor licensees, firearms dealers and other businesses subject to close regulation by government.

Thus, the court said, evidence from warrantless searches may be used to revoke liquor licenses, or, as in Paulson’s case, support criminal charges against a licensee involved in illicit drug activity.

Such searches are permissible when they serve a “substantial government interest,” further the state’s regulatory purpose and are made where property owners are fully aware that they are subject to periodic inspections, the panel said. California’s regulatory system meets all three requirements, the court said.

Kline noted that both drugs and alcohol are “intensely regulated” substances, are subject to abuse and addiction and are “attractive to many young persons and others who frequent licensed premises.”

“Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a particularized criminal act warranting special attention by those charged with enforcement of laws regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages,” he wrote.