OKLAHOMA PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY v. WALLING February 11, 1946 U.S.

Supreme Court Decision Justice Rutledge PETITIONER: Oklahoma Press Publishing Company RESPONDENT: Walling Wage and Hour Division Administrator

SUMMARY: In a prior case decided in 1945, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) was granted authority by the US Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas against petitioner pursuant to Sec. 11 (a) of the FLSA which enforces Sec. 9 & 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The subpoenas sought the production of specified records to determine whether petitioners were covered by the Act and if they were violating the FLSA. Petitioners, claim that the Act is not applicable to them, and insist that the question of applicability must be adjudicated before the subpoenas may be enforced. It was held that the Administrator as authorized by Congress and upon a judicial order may enforce the production of documents because there is a distinction between a "figurative/constructive search" and an actual search and seizure. Constructive searches are limited by the 4th Amendment (equivalent to Section 2 of Art. III), where actual search and seizure requires a warrant based on probable cause. However, where the subject of the constructive search are of corporate character, the 4th Amendment does not apply, since corporations are not entitled to all the constitutional protections created in order to protect the rights of private individuals (to be secure in person/home, right against selfincrimination etc). FACTS: Administrator of Hours and Wages Division ordered subpoenas against petitioner for the production of specified records to determine whether petitioners were covered by or violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. o Pursuant to Section 11(a) of the Act --- authorizes the Administrator to "investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in any industry subject to this Act, and [he] may enter and inspect such places and such records... o Claims that all the books, records, papers and documents referred to in the subpoena were "relative, material, and appropriate" to determine whether the company had violated the Act, and would "aid in the enforcement of the provisions of the Act". Information alleged that petitioner, as publisher of two daily newspapers, was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Act. Petitioners arguments: a. Neither it nor any of its employees were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. (irrelevant) b. If petitioner or any of its employees are engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, as a newspaper publisher, it is a service establishment as defined by Section 13(a) (2) of the Act and therefore exempt from its coverage. (irrelevant) c. A forced investigation would be an unreasonable search and seizure, and, moreover, any attempted regulation of its business violated the freedom of the press.

Will allow fishing expeditions by government to collect evidence without prior charge or complaint Court of Appeals affirmed Administrators orders in cases No. 61 and 63, hence the current petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Administrator has the right to judicial enforcement of subpoenas duces tecum in the course of investigations. HELD: Petition is DENIED. Judgments by the Court of Appeals in cases No. 61 and No. 63 are affirmed. RATIO: 1. Alleged Violation of 4th Amendment (fishing expeditions) Records present no question of actual search and seizure, but raise only the question whether orders of court for the production of specified records have been validly made; and no sufficient showing appears to justify setting them aside. 2. Standards for Constructive searches involving corporate documents Specific charge or complaint - not necessary, as in the case of a warrant. It is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose, within the power of Congress to command. This has been ruled most often in relation to grand jury investigations, general or statistical investigations authorized by Congress. Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation - satisfied in an order for production by the court's determination that the investigation is authorized by Congress, for a purpose Congress can order, and the documents sought are relevant to the inquiry. Reasonableness and Particularity - applicable to warrants, comes down to specification of the documents to be produced adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry. Case to case basis - for relevancy and adequacy or excess in the breadth of the subpoena are matters variable in relation to the nature, purposes and scope of the inquiry. 3. Corporation is not protected by the same rights as that of an individual As applied to the facts of the present case, it is impossible to conceive how a violation of petitioners' rights could have been involved. The only records or documents sought were corporate ones. No possible element of self-incrimination may be claimed. All the records sought were relevant to the authorized inquiry. The purpose of which was to determine two issues, whether petitioners were subject to the Act and, if so, whether they were violating it. Administrator issued according to the statute's authorization, to have the aid of the district court in enforcing it. No constitutional provision forbids Congress to do this. On the contrary, its authority would seem clearly to be comprehended in the "necessary and proper" clause, as incidental to both its general legislative and its investigative powers.