Posted: 02 May 2019 07:35 PM PDT
21 U.S.C. § 374(a). FDA admits it rarely uses this authority: “FDA does not routinely request inspection warrants in order to conduct investigations or inspections of regulated industry. However, warrants have been used effectively to gather information that has been refused improperly.”
FDA’s Regulatory Procedures Manual requires the following criteria to seek an inspection warrant:
The court denied both motions. The court recognized the strong deference afforded to the magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause, and also reinforced the well-settled proposition that “probable cause” in the criminal law sense is not required for an administrative warrant. Rather, probable cause may be based on either:
The court denied as premature FDA’s request to compel the company to speak with investigators on the ground that the warrant did not affirmatively require the company to engage in testimonial conduct, just the seizure of records. Thus, the court instructed FDA to take steps to first compel production of the information.
This case serves as good reminder to all FDA-regulated entities of the arsenal of tools FDA has to conduct its regulatory oversight. We assume FDA will only use the Inspection Warrant in limited circumstances, as proscribed by the RPM, but companies should know that a decision to refuse an inspection may be short-lived.
A recent decision out of Pennsylvania caught our eye, not because it applied a new enforcement strategy by FDA, but to the contrary, because it relied on FDA’s “oldie but goodie” Inspection Warrant authority. Not a search warrant, which is subject to the same “probable cause” standard as all criminal search warrants, but an administrative tool that is rooted in the inspection provisions of the FDC Act, FDA’s Regulatory Procedures Manual requires the following criteria to seek an inspection warrant:
- FDA is entitled by statute or regulation to inspect the facility and to have access to the information which has been refused; and
- there is a compelling FDA need for that information, and
- the firm/individuals have refused to allow inspection or access to information in spite of a clear demonstration or explanation of appropriate statutory authority.
The court denied both motions. The court recognized the strong deference afforded to the magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause, and also reinforced the well-settled proposition that “probable cause” in the criminal law sense is not required for an administrative warrant. Rather, probable cause may be based on either:
- A particularized showing that the manufacturing plant targeted for the search is the location of suspected . . . violations; or
- A showing that the industry in general poses certain hazards to workers coupled with a showing that the targeted facility was selected at random as part of a general plan to pursue and eliminate suspected industry-wide violations.
The court denied as premature FDA’s request to compel the company to speak with investigators on the ground that the warrant did not affirmatively require the company to engage in testimonial conduct, just the seizure of records. Thus, the court instructed FDA to take steps to first compel production of the information.
This case serves as good reminder to all FDA-regulated entities of the arsenal of tools FDA has to conduct its regulatory oversight. We assume FDA will only use the Inspection Warrant in limited circumstances, as proscribed by the RPM, but companies should know that a decision to refuse an inspection may be short-lived.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario