Simonsmeier L M
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1979 Jan;36(1):85-8.
The implications of the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marshall vs. Barlow's, Inc., regarding warrantless inspections of pharmacies are discussed. Reviewed are the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, related U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Camera vs. Municipal Court and See vs. City of Seattle), new "probable cause" standards, and exceptions to the requirement of warrants for inspections. The effect of the Barlow's case with specific reference to FDA, DEA and state board of pharmacy inspections is discussed. Although the Barlow's case has provided further case law in the area of administrative inspections, each case still requires individual resolution. DEA inspections are well delineated by statute and regulation. Under the "licensing exceptions," warrantless pharmacy inspections by the FDA and by boards of pharmacy are probably permissible.
本文讨论了1978年美国最高法院在马歇尔诉巴洛公司案中关于对药店进行无证检查的影响。回顾了美国宪法第四修正案、美国最高法院的相关判决(卡米拉诉市法院案和西诉西雅图市案)、新的“合理依据”标准以及检查无需搜查令要求的例外情况。讨论了巴洛案对食品药品监督管理局(FDA)、药品执法管理局(DEA)和州药房委员会检查的具体影响。尽管巴洛案在行政检查领域提供了进一步的判例法,但每个案件仍需单独解决。DEA的检查在法规中有明确规定。根据“许可例外”,FDA和药房委员会对药店进行无证检查可能是允许的。