Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Searches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington Supreme Court hears arguments over whether key‑card gym was 'open to the public' for safety inspections
Summary
At oral argument the court debated whether a gym that uses key‑card access for members can be treated as 'open to the public' for purposes of workplace‑safety inspections under WISHA and whether tailgating by inspectors violated constitutional privacy protections; the case was submitted for decision.
A three‑justice panel of the Washington State Supreme Court heard argument Tuesday in Bradshaw Development Inc. v. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries over whether a commercial gym that uses key‑card entry for paying members can be considered "open to the public" for workplace‑safety inspections.
William Henry, counsel for the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I), told the court that Bradshaw "flouted public safety laws" during the COVID‑19 pandemic and urged a narrow rule: a commercial gym that advertises itself as open, admits customers and sells memberships "has no reasonable expectation of privacy." He pointed to an illuminated "open" sign, a "welcome back" chalkboard and members in the facility, and argued that customers and prospective members are nonetheless members of the public for purposes of the Fourth Amendment analysis.
Austin Hatcher, counsel for the respondent, argued the opposite: a locked door and key‑card access, together with a membership list, constitute a subjective manifestation of privacy that supports a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hatcher relied on WISHA's statutory scheme (citing RCW 49.17.07 and RCW 49.17.075) and the availability of administrative‑warrant procedures, saying "the key card is enough" to show a business secured its premises and to trigger warrant protections.
Justices pressed both sides on two recurring questions: (1) whether following a patron through a secured door (so‑called tailgating) should be treated differently from other methods of entry; and (2) whether the administrative‑warrant process set out in statute can satisfy constitutional constraints without imposing an undue burden on workplace safety enforcement. Counsel disputed whether the inspectors in this case entered solely to seek consent or with intent to search for violations; Henry emphasized that the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals found inspectors had sought consent and that trial court findings had not been disturbed on appeal, while Hatcher focused on the availability of a warrant process and the premises' secured nature.
The arguments also turned on precedent. Counsel invoked a series of state and federal cases — including Dodge City Saloon and Carter — to differentiate areas where an employer may retain a privacy interest from publicly accessible spaces, and debated the relevance of cases involving tailgating and common areas. Hatcher suggested that Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution could provide broader privacy protection than the federal Fourth Amendment; justices asked whether statutory interpretation could avoid resolving those constitutional questions.
Neither side sought immediate relief from the court at argument; after rebuttal Henry reiterated that the Board's factual finding of employees being present was unchallenged and urged reversal of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court announced the case was submitted and adjourned without announcing a decision.
What happens next: the court will issue a written opinion resolving whether and when key‑card access and membership systems defeat L&I's authority to enter without a warrant or whether statutory administrative warrants and certain forms of entry are permissible. The ruling could affect how workplace‑safety inspectors access facilities that use membership or key‑card business models.
