Marshall V. Barlow Case Study

The decision of Marshall v. Barlow, 1978 immediately affected the field of public administration. The result of the Barlow’s case required that the governmental agencies obtain warrants to search or inspect an organization. A warrant provides assurance from a neutral officer that the inspection is reasonable under the Constitution, is authorized by statute, and reveals the administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria. Moreover, a warrant advises the owner of the scope and objects of the search, beyond the limits of the inspector.
OSHA
In the aftermath of the case, OSHA eliminated 989 provisions of safety standards unneeded and unrelated to job safety and health. Furthermore, the organization constructed an OSH Act to permit

inspections with an employer’s consent or through an authorized search warrant. Lastly, the OSHA hired a special assistant for small business and worked with the Small Business Administration to increase participation by small business in OSHA’s rulemaking.
ASPA
The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Code of Ethics states the two main practices that are crucial to the field: advancement of public interest and upholding the Constitution and the Law. It is recommended that public administrators comply with the ruling of Marshall v. Barlow because it is the law of the land as well as it adheres to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The field of public administration ethics ought to be grounded in the American constitutional tradition of freedom, equality, and property. In their compliance, they best serve the public through treating the public as citizens with certain rights as well as protecting and developing the capacity of the public organizations to advance public values.