Connection lost
Server error
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man was prosecuted for refusing to allow a warrantless housing inspection of his home. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for such administrative searches, but established a flexible ‘probable cause’ standard for obtaining one.
Legal Significance: This case extended the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement to administrative searches, creating a new, flexible standard of ‘area-wide probable cause’ that balances individual privacy against the government’s interest in public health and safety.
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
An inspector from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, conducting a routine annual inspection, sought to inspect appellant Camara’s ground-floor apartment. The inspector believed Camara was using the commercial space as a residence in violation of the building’s occupancy permit. Citing a municipal code provision that authorized warrantless inspections at reasonable times, the inspector demanded entry. Camara refused to permit the inspection without a search warrant. After two subsequent attempts to gain entry were also refused, the city filed a criminal complaint against Camara for violating the housing code by refusing to permit a lawful inspection. Camara filed for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the ordinance authorizing warrantless inspections was unconstitutional on its face under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The California courts, relying on Frank v. Maryland, denied the writ, holding that the regulatory scheme was primarily civil and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a municipal ordinance authorizing warrantless, non-emergency administrative inspections of private residences to enforce a housing code violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Yes. The Court held that appellant had a constitutional right to insist Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a municipal ordinance authorizing warrantless, non-emergency administrative inspections of private residences to enforce a housing code violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Conclusion
This landmark decision extended Fourth Amendment warrant protections to administrative searches, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, qui
Legal Rule
Administrative searches of private property are significant intrusions upon the interests protected Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor s
Legal Analysis
The Court began its analysis by rejecting the reasoning of *Frank v. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.