Tasks breakdown:

1. Define what you mean by business inspections.

1. What are business inspections:
1. Find:
1. Statutes/Laws
2. Examples
2. Research on the search warrant requirement.
1. Find:
1. History,
2. background,
3. Definition
4. function,
5. law
3. Research on what a 'Search' is?
1. Characteristics and aspects of a search.
2. What is not a search?
3. Is an inspection a search?
4. Research on the exceptions to the search warrant requirement

Research:

Search Warrant Requirement

---- Apostol ----

Definition: Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court. (Rule 126, Sec. 1 ROC)

Search warrants are in the nature of an interlocutory character, because it leaves something more to be
done, the determination of guilt of the accused. (Apostol, citing Marcelo v. De Guzman)

Constitutional provision and the search warrant: … No search warrant shall issue except upon probable
cause, to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law,
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. (Art. IV, Sec. 3)

Purpose of Constitutional provision – prevent violation of the private security in person and property,
and the unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home by officers of the law acting under legislative or
judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpation when attempted.

Do corporations entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizure? While a corporation has
no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state, it is
however, entitled to the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The state can require corporations to produce books and papers of a merchant under revenue laws. This
is not considered an attempt to unreasonable search the private affairs of the business in which the
government as a supervising power has an interest, and concerning the conduct of which, as affecting
public revenues, the government is prosecuting the pending proceedings.

The protection is not limited to dwelling houses, but extends to garage, warehouse, shop, store, office
and even a safety deposit vault.

Definition of unreasonable search and seizure: No fixed or absolute meaning. In general language, all
illegal searches are unreasonable while lawful ones are reasonable. Whether a search or seizure is
reasonable or unreasonable in a particular case, is a peculiar judicial question and can be determined
from the circumstances involved in each case.

Exclusionary rule – the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The non-exclusionary rule is contrary to the letter and spirit of the
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. If there is competent evidence to establish
probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party against whom the warrant is intended,
then there is no reason why the applicant should not comply with the constitutional requirements. If he
has no such evidence, then it is not possible for the judge to find that there is probable cause, and hence
no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only possible explanation for the issuance in such a
case, is the necessity of fishing for evidence of the commission of a crime. Such a fishing expedition Is
indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause.

---- Bernas ----

Not on search warrants, but on the principle behind

Section 2 is not just a circumscription of the power of the state over a person's home and possessions.
More important, it protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself. It is guarantee of the right of
the people to be secure in their “persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

What is a search?
The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only of unreasonable
searches and seizures. What are unreasonable searches and seizures? For search to become
unreasonable, there must be in the first place a search or seizure in the constitutional sense. The point at
which a seizure occurs is easily enough determined, but at what point does an inspection become a
search in the sense of Sec. 2? This became an issue in cases involving police checkpoints instituted at a
time when the country was wracked by crimes and the government by coup attempts. The Court in
Valmote v. de Villa said that there is as yet no cause for the application of the constitutional rule when
what are involved are routine checks consisting of “a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is
neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is
limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right
against unreasonable searches and seizures.

People v. Escano elaborated on this further in dealing with checkpoints when a gun ban has been
imposed by the COMELEC. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine checkpoints do
intrude to a certain extent on motorists right to free passage without interruption, but it cannot be
denied that as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle's occipants
are required to answer a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its
occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search,
said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable
searches and seizures. In fact these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area are even less
intrusive. We see no need for checkpoints to be announced, as the accused have invoked. Not only
would it be impractical, it would also forewarn those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of
legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner by
which they are operated.

As a general rule however, where there is a search or seizure, the plain import of the language of the
Constitution, which in one sentence prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time
prescribes the requisites for a valid warrant, is that searches and seizures are unreasonable unless
authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection
given by the search and seizure clause is that between person and police must stand the protective
authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of
arrest.

On probable cause: Key function of the magistrate is determination of the existence of probable cause.
As contained in the provision, no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause. Probable
cause is then the primary requirement for the issuance of a warrant and as will be seen later, its
existence is also one of the requirements for the narrowly drawn instances when search or seizure may
be made without a warrant. What then is probable cause.

In probable cause, as the name implied, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical, they are
factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal
technicians act. It has been defined generally as “such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances,
as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action, and the mean taken in prosecuting it are
legally just and proper. It is such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that
are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof.

Probable cause for a search would mean such facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. Search warrant need not point to a
specific offender. But in either case, it should be emphasized that what is required is not proof beyond
reasonable doubt but merely probable cause.

What amounts to sufficient evidence may differ from case to case depending on the nature of the object
of the search. Thus, for instance, it has been held that in an application for a search warrant for
contraband video tapes the presentation of the master tapes of copyrighted films from which copies had
been made is essential but only if there is doubt about the true nexus between the master tape and the
copies.

Probable cause presupposes the introdution of competent proof that the party in whom it is sought has
performed particular acts or committed specific omissions violating a given provision of our criminal
laws. In Stonehill, when the court invalidated the warrant, said that the description of the offense,
which were not particular, made it impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the
existence of probable cause. In other words, probable cause means probable cause of something
specific.

On Bernas' discussion of who should determine probable cause. He traces the history of who in the past
were the defined issuing party. There were instances were non-judges were allowed to issue search
warrants and they were regarded as valid. According to Bernas, it is difficult to support the claim that
the determination of probable cause is essentially a judicial function. Jurisprudence attests to the
contrary. In the case of Ocampo v. U.S., a case of Phil. Origin, the US Supreme Court stated that the
function of determining whether probable cause exists for the arrest of a person accused is only quasi-
judicial, and not such that, because of its nature, it must necessarily be confided to a strictly judicial
officer or tribunal.

He also cited Shadwick v. City of Tampa: “the warrant traditionally has been represented an
independent assurance that a search and arrest will not proceed without probable cause to believe that a
crime has been committed and that the person or placed named in the warrant is involved in the crime.
Thus an issuing magistrate must meet two tests. He must be neutral and detached, and he must be
capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search.... What we do
reject today is any per se invalidation of a state or local warrant on the ground that the issuing
magistrate is not a lawyer or a judge. Communities may have sound reasons for delegating the
responsibility of issuing warrants to competent personnel other than judges or lawyers... (what follows
are the possible reasons why a non-judicial officer may be assigned the function of determining
probable cause.)

Whether however the officer determining probable cause be a judge or not, the determination must be
made only after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce and the warrant must contain the required particularity of description. The witnesses need not
be personally examined by a Judge.

On discussion of particularity of description – The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to
limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant – to
leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that
“unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made, that abuses may not be committed.”

On searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. According to Bernas, the said
phrase, extended the search and seizure rule to at least two penumbral areas (but there is no sufficient
proof in the ConCom records for these findings, he admits) The first is the area of constructive search
contained in a subpoena duces tecum or an order for the production of books and papers. (Rule 27 of
ROC: Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, the
court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and
copying/photographing by on or behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or
contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody
or control.) Discussion on Rule 27, revolves around the fact, that the rule may be used in order to
validate a fishing expedition if the rule is not sufficiently made to follow the constitutional principles
on search and seizure.

Probable cause is the minimum requirement of the search and seizure clause. (p. 182)

The other penumbral area of search and seizure, as yet untouched by Philippine jurisprudence, became
the subject of Camara v. Municipal Court. The case arose out of the conviction of the appellant for
refusing entry to a housing inspector who, unarmed with a search warrant, sought to inspect appellant's
dwelling. The US Supreme Court reversed the conviction saying: “We hold the administrative searches
of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth
Amendment, that such searches when authorized and conducted without a warrant procedure lack the
traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment guarantees to the individual.” → In arriving at this
Conclusion, however the Court was aware that the only effectie way to seek universal compliance with
the minimum standards required by municipal codes is through routine periodic inspection of all
structures. Thus, the search warrant it required (and the nature of probable cause and the degree of
particularity it prescribed) was called by the dissent as a newfangled warrant system that is entirely
foreign to Fourth Amendment standards. In this case, probable cause did not require specification of
evidence of violation but allowed the evaluation to rest upon “passage of time, nature of the building,
or the condition of the entire area.) As for description, the Court was willing to accept warrants on an
area-wide basis.

Justification of SC for 'synthetic' warrants: such an approach neither endangers time-honored doctrines
applicable to criminal investigations or makes nullity of the probable cause requirement in this area. It
merely gives full recognition to the competing public and private interests here at stake, and in so
doing, best fulfills the historic purpose behind the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable
government invasions of privacy.

Exceptions to the warrant requirements

The rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. The
search and seizure clause has two parts. The first prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizure” and the
second lays down the requirements for a valid warrant. As the text stands, it does not yield the
conclusion that a search or seizure not supported by a warrant is necessarily “unreasonable”. Thus, it is
that jurisprudence necessarily recognizes five generally well-established exceptions to the warrant
requirement. They are (1) search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of
evidence in plain view; (4) customs searches; and (5) where there is waiver of a right. A rarer exception
is the rule on “exigent circumstances: and the “stop and frisk” rule.

Search incidental to arrest – Moreno v. Ago Chi – An officer making an arrest may take from the
person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the
crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing
violence or escaping or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the cause. Purpose: protect the
arresting officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might be armed with a
concealed weapon and also to prevent the person arrested from destroying evidence within his reach.
The exception therefore should not be strained beyond what is needed in order to serve its purpose.
Limitations: scope of allowable warrantless search is limited to the area within which the person
arrested could reach for a weapon or reach for evidence to destroy it (found in Nolaco v. Pano).

Search of moving vehicles – Papa v. Mago citing Caroll v. United States – “Customs seizure of two
trucks coming from the port purportedly containing misdeclared and undervalued imported goods. The
guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary
difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant
may readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon or automobile for contraband goods,
where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” → borne out of exigent circumstances.
Important to note that this does not dispense with the rule on probable cause. Bernas citing Almeida-
Sanchez v. US: “The Caroll decision does not declare a field day for the police in searching
automobiles. Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.” According to
Bernas, the decision in Papa v. Mago is comparable to American border control cases which give
customs and immigration officers the broadest power to search. Hence this is not so straight cut
application to every search of moving vehicles as it first appears. In Bernas' examples, the primary
things that stands out is the allowance of warrantless searches that are borne out by emergency
situations in which it is not practicable to apply for a search warrant.

A police checkpoint can also be the occasion for a search of a moving vehicle. Note though that it still
requires probable cause (Caballes v. Court of Appeals: The mere mobility of these vehicles, however,
does not give the officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if
made within the interior of the territory and in the absence of probable cause... One such form of search
of moving vehicles is the “stop-and-search” without warrant at military or police checkpoints which
has been declared to be not illegal per se, for as long as it is warranted by the exigencies of public order
and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. A checkpoint may either be a mere routine
inspection or it may involve an extensive search.)

Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search.
The search which is normally permissible in this instance is limited to the following instances: 1.)
where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on public fair
grounds; 2.) simply looking into a vehicle; 3.) flashes a light therein without opening a car's doors; 4.)
where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; 5.) where the inspection of the
vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and 6.) where the routine check is conducted
in a fixed area.

Evidence in plain view – (Harris v. US cited) objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.
Thus where the marijuana sticks fall before the eyes of a police officer from an object a person is
carrying, seizure of the sticks would not require a warrant. (Note the keyword: seizure)

Modified in the case of Coolidge: to come under exception the discovery must be inadvertent. If an
officer encounters prohibited objects only after poking around, the discovery would not be inadvertent.

Customs inspections search – Bernas: it has been traditionally understood that customs officers or
border officers may search incoming persons and goods to look for either goods concealed to avoid
duties or other illegal materials.

Waiver – Waiver is a general exception. The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like
every right be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.

Exigent circumstances – from People v. De Gracia: there was probable cause to believe that a crime
was being committed; the team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the
courts. One of the witnesses of which was a judge said that on the day of the event, his court was
closed.

Stop and frisk rule – Taken from Terry v. Ohio adapted to Posadas v. CA: Where an officer observes
unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal
activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman
and make reasonable inquiries. And where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel
his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in
the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to
discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Serves two interests: 1.) general interest of
effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may
under appropriate circumstances an in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and 2.) the more pressing interest
of safety and self-preservation which permit the offier to take steps to assure himself that the person
with whom he deals with is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
used against him.

Bernas on exceptions. Exceptions do not declare a field day for searching officers. The essential
requisites of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be
lawfully conducted. Probable cause in these cases must be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or
belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. It is however decided to by the
judge and not the searching officer.

Suspicionless drug tests – In Vernonia School District v. Acton, the Court acknowledged that compelled
urinalysis was a form of search but its reasonableness must be judged by balancing the intrusion on the
individual's interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. 1.) Student athletes have
a lesser privacy expectation than free adults because an element of communal undress is inherent in
athletic participation and athletes are subject to preseason physical examinations; 2.) The privacy
interests involved in the process of obtaining urine samples are negligible since the conditions of
collection are almost identical with those found in public restrooms. 3.) Moreover, the tests looked only
for standard drugs and not medical conditions, and the results would only be released to a selected
group. The legitimate interests of the state in reducing the risk of physical harm to the athlete and to
others outweighs the privacy interest of the student athlete.

Bernas also mentioned Board of Education v. Earls where all students in middle school and high
school, irrespective of athletic participation were asked to undergo drug testing. The court said that the
distinction between athletes and non-athlete members of the school was not essential. What was
essential were the school's custodial responsibility and authority, the nature of the intrusion, the
confidentiality of test results and the legitimate government interest.

---- Francisco ----

Definition of search warrant from Rule 126, Sec. 1: A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the
name of the People of the Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

Elements of a search warrant:

• Order in writing
• Signed by the judge in the name of the People of the Philippines
• commanding a peace officer to search for personal property and
• bring it before the court

Nature of a search warrant – Search warrants are in the nature of criminal process and may be invoked
only in furtherance of public prosecutions.

Statutes providing for their issuance and execution are sustained our constitutional provisions
forbidding unreasonable search and seizure only as necessary means of suppression of crime and
deletion and punishment of criminals.
Search warrants have no relations to civil process or trials and are not available to individuals in the
course of civil proceedings, nor for the maintenance of any mere private right.

Search warrants → interlocutory in character because it leaves something more to be done, the
determination of the guilt of the accused.

Object of search warrant – obtain goods, and bring the person in whose custody they are found either to
be recognized as a witness or to be subject to such further proceedings as the ends of justice may
require.

Construction of a search warrant – search warrant must conform strictly to the requirement of the
constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued, otherwise it is void.

Search v. seizure – Definition of terms – The term 'search' as applied to searches and seizures is an
examination of a person's house or other buildings or premises or of his person with a view to the
discovery of contraband or illicit or stolen property or some evidence of guilt to be used in the
prosecution of a criminal action for some offense with which he is charged. While seizure is the
physical taking of a thing into custody.

Seizure implies a quest by an officer of the law, and seizure contemplates a forcible dispostion of the
owner.

Personal property to be seized – Rule 126, Sec. 2:

1. Subject of the offense
2. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
3. Used or intended to be used as means of committing an offense

The critical element of a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime,
but that there is reasonable cause that the things to be searched for are there.

Requisites of a search warrant – Rule 126, Sec. 3: A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable
cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

1. Probable cause
2. which (probable cause) must be determined personally by the Judge himself and not by the
applicant or any other person
3. the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers in writing and under oath the complainant and any witness he may
produce, on facts personally known to them
4. the probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense
5. the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized and
6. the sworn statements together with the affidavits submitted by witnesses must be attached to the
record.

Reason why constitution does not give the judge unrestricted power to issue search warrants but require
them to issue a warrant only where there exists probable cause to be determined b the judge after
examination – Of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace
and happiness than the right of personal security and that involves the exemption of his private affairs,
books and papers, from the inspection and scrutiny of others. While the power to search and seize is
necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the
constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government.

Probable cause – such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that are in
themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to believe:
• that the person against whom the search warrant is applied had committed, or is about to
commit a crime.
• That an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place sought to be searched.
• To rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof.

Reason for requiring that a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. - The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things
to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant – to leave the officers
of the law no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches
and seizures may not be made, that abuses may not be committed. Therefore, no other property than
those described in the search warrant may be taken thereunder.

Barlow's case -
• Inspector under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 entered Barlow's an electrical
& plumbing installation business
• No complaint had been made against Barlow – Barlow turned up in agency's selection process
• Inspector demanded to conduct a search of the working areas of Barlow but had no search
warrant
• Barlow refused on the basis of Fourth Amendment despite a federal court order, he refused
inspection without a warrant
• Issue: Is the statutory authorization for warrantless inspection under OSHA constitutional? → Is
it constitutional to authorize warrantless inspection by statute?
The authority to make warrantless searches settles unbridled discretion on administrative and field
officers.

Against whom does the constitutional prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures apply? - The
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint direct only
against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is
imposed.

If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is
to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the
proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of
police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act
of private individual, not the law enforcers is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it
within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
Exclusionary rule is necessary – The exclusion of illlegally seized documents and evidence is the only
practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. If
there is a competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the
party against whom the warrant is intended, then there is no reason why the applicant should not
comply with the constitutional requirements. If he has no such evidence, then it is not possible for the
judge to find that there is probable cause, and hence no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The
only possible explanation for the issuance in that case is the necessity of fishing for evidence of the
commission of a crime. Such a fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish
probable cause.

Question#29 by Francisco – May a compulsory production of corporate books and papers amount to
unreasonable search and seizure? - An order for the product of the books and papers of a corporation
may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure as where a subpoena duces tecum fails to describe
particularly the documents desired but is broad and unlimited in its scope, being intended merely as a
means of eliciting information, and amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure.

Where the order limits the books and papers to be produced to those covering a reasonable period of
time, containing accounts or entries relating to the matter under investigation, and describing them as
specifically as may be it is not open to the objection of being an unreasonable search and seizure. Thus,
a subpoena duces tecum calling for the production before a prosecuting officer engaged in investigating
the alleged criminal conduct of the former officers of a corporation of all the corporate books, letters
and telegrams in their possession, covering a specified period of fifteen months is not so broad as to
amount to an unreasonable search and seizure.

Things to follow up:

• Search Google for purpose of search warrant
• Valmonte v. De Villa
• Central Bank v. Morfe (Central Bank requested for a search warrant as state administrative
supervisor of the operations of banks.) - Bernas: If the Court had barred access to the records of
the mutual savings and loans association by asking for unreasonable degree of particularity in
the description of the books whose inspection was desired, it would have unduly paralyzed the
regulatory power of the Central Bank.
• Do all exceptions still require probable cause? Yes
• Go back to the essential factors in Vernonia case and Board of Education.
• Find out what will happen if a labor inspection occurs due to complaint of a worker and there is
a finding of a violation
• Salazar v. Achacoso – The Secretary of Labor had the power to issue a search warrant → Does
this mean that it was a search? What was searched? Or was it an inspection?
• La Chemise Lacoste S.A. v. Fernandez
• Is production of books also a search?

Quick observations:
• Probable cause mainly targeted for criminal offense
• There might still be a search in business inspections if an inspection is done subject to a
complaint