( Shapiro, supra, 335 U.S. at p. 4; Craib, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 479; see also California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 52 [required records accessible only by "legal process"].) But see Reiter v . Com., Ins. Dept. (Pa. Cmwlth 1987) 525 A.2d 446, 450. No reported case has followed Reiter on this point and, for the reasons discussed below, we also decline to follow it.
See Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948); State RealEstate Com'n v. Roberts, 441 Pa. 159, 271 A.2d 246 (1970), cert.denied 402 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 1367, 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971); Reiterv. Commonwealth Ins. Dept., 105 Pa. Commw. 623, 629, 525 A.2d 446, 450 (1987) alloc. denied 517 Pa. 590, 534 A.2d 770 (1987). This justification for warrantless inspections stands on grounds separate and distinct from those discussed above for warrantless administrative inspections of pharmacies generally.
The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the heavy burden of establishing that the statute clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution, with any uncertainty being resolved in favor of its validity. Reiter v. Commonwealth, 105 Pa.Cmwlth. 623, 525 A.2d 446, 449, appeal denied, 517 Pa. 590, 534 A.2d 770 (1987). Petitioner simply cannot meet such an elevated burden in this case.
We note that we have refused to extend such protection in other situations involving highly regulated industries. See, e.g., Reiter v. Commonwealth, 105 Pa. Commw. 623, 525 A.2d 446 (1987); Peterson v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 68 Pa. Commw. 353, 449 A.2d 774 (1982). That section provides that "[t]he department shall refuse to issue a license or shall revoke a license for . . . violation of or non-compliance with the provisions of this act or of regulations pursuant thereto . . . ." 62 P. S. ยง 1026(b)(1).