In People v. Keta 79 NY2d 474 [1992] defendant sought to appeal the denial of his motion seeking to suppress evidence, which evidence resulted in criminal charges against him (id. at 492-493). Such evidence was seized after members of the NYPD arrived at defendant's vehicle dismantling operation and announced they were there to perform an administrative inspection pursuant to VTL 415-a(5) (id.). Defendant obliged and the officers proceeded to scan the vehicle identification numbers of several vehicles, discovering them to be stolen (id.). Defendant was arrested and sought to suppress the physical evidence on grounds that it was obtained pursuant to VTL 415-a(5), which defendant argued was facially unconstitutional insofar as it violated NYSC Article 1, 12 (id.). In Keta, the court once again reiterated its obligation to interpret the provisions of New York's constitution independent of any existing federal analogue (id. at 495-496). Specifically the court stated that in determining the scope of the guarantees contained in our State Constitution, we--consistent with well-settled principles of federalism--are not bound by decisions of the Supreme Court construing similar provisions of the Federal Constitution (id. at 495-496). Thus, while acknowledging that the Court in Berger, found that VTL 415-a(5), and the warrantless searches it authorized, did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the Court in Keta stated that [o]ur firm and continuing commitment to protecting the privacy rights embodied within article I, 12 of our State Constitution leads us to the conclusion that Vehicle and Traffic Law 415-a (5) (a)'s provisions for warrantless, suspicionless searches of business premises cannot withstand challenge under our State Constitution. While State and Federal uniformity is a worthwhile goal in constitutional decision-making, that goal must yield to the need for a predictable, structured analysis, lest the rules governing official intrusions on individuals' privacy become muddied and the constitutional guarantees represented by article I, 12 concomitantly diluted. Nowhere is that danger more evident than in this context, where the underlying issue involves the degree to which government inspectors may enter upon and search commercial establishments without either particularized suspicion (much less probable cause) or advance judicial oversight (id. at 497.) VTL 415-a (5) (a) provides, in part: Every person required to be registered pursuant to this section shall maintain a record of all motor vehicles, trailers, and major component parts thereof, coming into his possession together with a record of the disposition of any such motor vehicle, trailer or part thereof and shall maintain proof of ownership for any motor vehicle, trailer or major component part thereof while in his possession . . . Upon request of an agent of the commissioner or of any police officer and during his regular and usual business hours, a vehicle dismantler shall produce such records and permit said agent or police officer to examine them and any vehicles or parts of vehicles which are subject to the record keeping requirements of this section and which are on the premises.