1. Assume that one worker notifies the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and that an OSHA agent informs Grendel that an investigation will be undertaken into the allegations of workplace hazards. Grendel immediately hires an air-conditioning repair company to fix the air-conditioning system. He also tells the on-site manager to destroy any maintenance records of the warehouse air-conditioning system history of inspections and repairs. What potential criminal culpability would DBAS, Grendel, and the on-site manager have at this point? Do Grendel’s preinvestigation actions constitute a criminal act? Do Grendel’s actions after OSHA’s notification of an investigation constitute a crime in and of themselves? Is the on-site manager criminally liable for carrying out Grendel’s orders?

2. Suppose that Grendel is charged with a crime related to the workplace hazards and he defends by showing evidence that he ordered subordinates to take care of the hazards but his directions were never carried out. Is that a valid defense? If Grendel had second thoughts about his orders to destroy maintenance records and he called the manager to reverse his previous directions, would he still have criminal liability for attempting the cover-up?

3. Assume that during the investigation, OSHA agents make a midnight visit to Grendel’s residence and remove documents from Grendel’s trash bin on the public curb in front of his house. The documents contain incriminating evidence. Is the OSHA search illegal? Does the exclusionary rule apply in this case?

4. Assume that OSHA has information indicating that Grendel wrote about having a guilty conscience in regard to the working conditions in the ware-house. During the criminal investigation of Grendel, OSHA issues a subpoena for Grendel’s personal diary. Is Grendel’s diary protected from inspection via the Fifth Amendment?

5. Is OSHA required to obtain a search warrant if OSHA investigators use cameras with telephoto lenses (that are available to the general public) to take pictures of the broken air-conditioning unit adjacent to the ware-house?  Assume the investigators take pictures while standing on the public sidewalk.

Dania Beach Antique Supply (DBAS) Inc. is a wholesaler of antique merchandise. DBAS employs expert buyers who purchase antiques in Europe. The company then makes any cosmetic improvements necessary (such as cleaning) and resells the merchandise to retail antique shops in the United States. Grendel is a senior-level executive at the company in charge of its primary ware-house, located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and a smaller facility at the Port of Miami. One of Grendel’s responsibilities is to oversee worker safety in the facilities, as the processing of the antiques sometimes involves use of industrial machinery and cleaning solvents. 

It was well known among DBAS employees that the Fort Lauderdale warehouse had less than ideal working conditions. The air-conditioning was often broken, and during the summer months the indoor temperature was in excess of 100 degrees. The cleaning solvents were left unattended, and the noxious fumes made working conditions hazardous. When workers complained to Grendel, he purchased small fans to be placed in the facility but declined to overhaul the air-conditioning, claiming that the expense was too high and that the company was struggling financially. Grendel also ordered that the cleaning solvents be properly disposed of, but the on-site manager never carried out the order. In the meantime, several employees were hospitalized for heat exhaustion during their shift, and several others were made sick by the fumes from the cleaning solvents.