Administrative Searches and the 4th Amendment

[Pertinacious Tom]

This might appear to be seperating people into some kind of "Class System" ,

, with homeowners having the normal right to privacy of the Fourth.

, and the (lower class?) renters NOT having a right to privacy "for theit own good"

? am I missing something here ?

Yes, you are. The system is not quite as clever as you make it sound. As I pointed out three years ago, they're selecting who will benefit from a government inspection at random. They want to protect rich and poor alike.

In any rental market, you can identify the people with choices by the rent they're paying. Around here, the annual market for homes ranges from around 800/month to around 1,500/month. Hmmm... where might we find landlords who are neglecting maintenance to the point of breach of contract? Might it be the landlord who has a friggin' lawyer for the county paying near the top end? Or maybe we should look elsewhere?

Looking elsewhere leads quickly to: rich lawyers have fourth amendment rights and poor janitors don't.

Because my tenant who is a lawyer for the county and could easily buy a house if he wanted to do so is sooooo oppressed by me.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

That still doesnt address the  "homeowner vs renter" class system.

The poor janitor could scrimp, work two jobs, and save up enough for a down payment , which would give him a right to privacy.

Your (rich) lawer tenant, for reasons of his own, chooses to rent fom you rather than simply cashing out a house, does not have that same right to privacy , , for his own good.

? yes ?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

That still doesnt address the  "homeowner vs renter" class system.

The poor janitor could scrimp, work two jobs, and save up enough for a down payment , which would give him a right to privacy.

Your (rich) lawer tenant, for reasons of his own, chooses to rent fom you rather than simply cashing out a house, does not have that same right to privacy , , for his own good.

? yes ?

I don't live in Seattle, but otherwise, yes, you understand the system perfectly.

Are these public safety and health inspections?

I was hoping to get El B to learn the answer to his question on his own, but he's uninterested in issues.

So, with a spoiler alert, yes. Which answers Mike's question too. The proponents use "public health and safety" where you and I use "for his own good" but the bottom line is the same: homeowners have fourth amendment rights. Renters have them unless/until they conflict with "public health and safety." Then they don't. It's that simple.

 

[El Borracho]

..... homeowners have fourth amendment rights. Renters have them unless/until they conflict with "public health and safety." Then they don't. It's that simple.

Are you, or the one other extant Libertarian, proposing that a constitutional amendment is needed? I am thinking this is really only an issue for the courts? Is the problem then one of finding a test case with a renter able to afford appeals to SCOTUS because the public defenders, which Libertarians would axe on their first day in power, don’t have the budget? Public defenders being very much a service of a powerful and comprehensive Liberal state. The ACLU could take up the case but for the fact the Libertarians have no love for the ACLU race equality agenda. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Are you, or the one other extant Libertarian, proposing that a constitutional amendment is needed?

Not sure where you found that proposal in the IJ complaints or statements.

As for me, I would have no problem with a system where any of my tenants could anonymously request a health and safety inspection. One of them has stinky water at the moment. I'm working on it and she knows I am, but not all landlords fix stuff.

Public defenders being very much a service of a powerful and comprehensive Liberal state.

I seem to be the only one on this forum willing to listen to public defenders on one issue. I would not abolish them and am not sure who you are talking about who might.

The ACLU could take up the case but for the fact the Libertarians have no love for the ACLU race equality agenda. 

I'm also a yuge fan of the ACLU, but not many here seem interested.

 

[El Borracho]

...but not many here seem interested.

...so make it interesting. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...so make it interesting. 

You were interested in public defenders mere minutes ago. What did I do to change it?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Small Business Owner Sues to Stop Ohio’s “Whenever, Wherever” Inspections
 

We have two houses, one with my office and the other with my wife's two offices. There are some record-keeping requirements on all of our businesses. No more fourth amendment, I guess. At least until the nutjobs arrive at SCOTUS and win again.

Jeremy Bennett's taxidermy business won't be randomly searched, for now...
 

COLUMBUS, Ohio—The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) turned over a new leaf for the New Year. In response to a major federal Fourth Amendment lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) and Ohio taxidermist and deer processor Jeremy Bennett, ODNR issued a formal directive requiring its wildlife officers to obtain consent or a warrant before searching taxidermy and deer-processing shops. Now, Jeremy and others can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that ODNR officials cannot barge in whenever and however they please.

...

With IJ’s help, Jeremy filed a lawsuit challenging the state regulation authorizing ODNR’s warrantless searches. The lawsuit argues that giving wildlife officers unchecked power to search harmless and largely unregulated businesses—like taxidermists and deer processors in Ohio—violates the Fourth Amendment. In response, ODNR’s new directive requires officers to obtain consent or a warrant when conducting future taxidermy and deer-processing inspections.

“This new directive gives me peace of mind, at least for now, that wildlife officers will respect my private property and the property of all my fellow taxidermists and deer processors,” said Jeremy. “I’m hopeful that ODNR will do the right thing and make this change permanent by eliminating the regulation authorizing these warrantless inspections.”

Until that happens, though, Jeremy’s lawsuit goes on.

“ODNR’s directive, while encouraging, is not a permanent solution,” said IJ Nutjob Joshua Windham. “The regulation that allowed these officers to invade Jeremy’s shop without a warrant, and to prosecute him for standing on his Fourth Amendment rights, remains on the books. We won’t rest until that regulation is gone for good.”

ODNR's newfound appreciation for warrants is nice and all, but I'm glad nutjobs never rest.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Zion, Illinois Rental Inspections

Not any more.

City of Zion Changes Rental Inspection Law Following Lawsuit from Institute for Justice
 

Earlier this week, the Zion City Council amended its rental inspection law, which will no longer punish landlords or tenants who refuse to open their doors for rental inspections without a search warrant. The reform was passed unanimously by the City Council in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of landlord Josefina Lozano and her tenants, Dorice and Robert Pierce, by the Institute for Justice (IJ).  

...

“Just because someone chooses to rent their home doesn’t mean they lose their right to privacy and security in their personal space,” said IJ Nutjob Rob Peccola. “If the government wants to look through someone’s home, they need a warrant. It’s good to see Zion get rid of its outrageous system of punishing people with massive fines simply for standing up for their constitutional rights.” 

In 2019, Zion officials attempted to conduct warrantless inspections at several properties owned by Josefina. Her tenants refused the inspections, because they didn’t want government officials snooping around in their most intimate and private spaces. Following the refusal, the city threatened Josefina with fines that could total in the six figures. Instead of rolling over and allowing their rights to be infringed upon, Josefina, Dorice and Robert teamed up with IJ to challenge the law in federal court. 

Following the initial filing of the lawsuit, the city agreed to stop enforcement against Josefina and her tenants. But this week’s reform codifies the right of all tenants to not be penalized if they request a warrant before opening their doors to city officials.

I guess the phrase "the people" in the fourth amendment means "even renters," so that's nice.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Jeremy Bennett's taxidermy business won't be randomly searched, for now...



ODNR's newfound appreciation for warrants is nice and all, but I'm glad nutjobs never rest.

Victory for Ohio Taxidermist Who Fought Against Warrantless Inspections

Ohio taxidermist and deer processor Jeremy Bennett dismissed his federal lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) after the agency removed its regulation allowing warrantless business inspections. ODNR also compensated Jeremy for his troubles—namely, a 2021 prosecution for allegedly “refusing” a warrantless inspection of his shop. Jeremy launched his lawsuit last year with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nutjob law firm that protects property rights nationwide.


“People don’t lose their Fourth Amendment right when they open a business,” said IJ Nutjob Joshua Windham. “Before we filed this case, ODNR’s regulation gave state game wardens virtually unlimited power to enter people’s private shops—without consent or a warrant—and spend hours snooping around. That regulation squarely violated the Fourth Amendment, and we’re delighted that Ohio has abandoned it.”
...

And that's why I'm glad that nutjobs never rest.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Nutjobs Challenge New York City’s Abusive Building Code Fines and Fees



I hope Mr. Corsini prevails.

Kochy nutjobs are at it again.

NYC Fined Property Owner For Something He Didn’t Do and Didn’t Provide Him a Hearing or an Appeal—Now He’s Fighting Back

Serafim Katergaris was forced to pay $1,000 to the New York Department of Buildings (DOB) for a code violation he did not commit, did not know about and had no chance to challenge. Worse yet, the DOB did not let him appeal its decision. Had the DOB provided him a hearing or a chance to appeal, he would have shown that the violation was caused by a previous owner for a boiler that had been removed before he purchased the property—the precise type of facts that should relieve someone from responsibility for a fine. Sadly, this is a regular practice of the DOB. Today, Serafim joined forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a class-action lawsuit that aims to end New York City’s system of issuing fines to property owners while denying them a hearing or an appeal.

New York City requires property owners with certain kinds of boilers to have their boilers inspected annually and then file a report with the city regarding the inspection. When Serafim bought a home in Harlem in 2014, it did not have a boiler. The previous owner had removed it earlier that year, with the necessary permits and documentation filed with the DOB post-removal. However, the previous owner did not file an inspection report the year before he removed the boiler—something Serafim did not know because the DOB did not assess the violation until after he had purchased the property. The violation did not show up on a title search because the DOB takes up to two years to report violations. When Serafim went to sell the house in 2021, he learned for the first time of the missing 2013 report, that he would need to pay $1,000 for the previous owner’s mistake and that a current inspection would need to be completed—an impossible task for a long-gone boiler. Serafim asked for a hearing but was rebuffed; the DOB does not provide any avenue to challenge the fine or appeal it. His only option was to pay.

...

“DOB has an important role to play in protecting New Yorkers from dangerous conditions in buildings, but imposing fines on property owners without giving them a hearing or appeal leads to the city punishing innocent people instead of fixing actual threats,” said IJ Nutjob Jared McClain. “It undermines public confidence and distracts the city from correcting actually dangerous conditions.”


IJ is the premier defender of property rights and has challenged excessive fines throughout the country, including a similar case where the DOB fined a man a total of $11,000 for building a pigeon coop; a case in Lantana, Florida, where a woman was fined $100,000 for parking in her own driveway; and a class action suit in Pagedale, Missouri, challenging a law that allows the city to fine people for very normal things like having a barbeque in their front yard or walking on the left side of the sidewalk.

I like that Serafim Katergaris is supposed to pay AND somehow complete an inspection of a boiler that has been gone for years.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Granite City Nuisance Evictions Upheld

What makes a tenant a "nuisance," one might ask? About the same things as in the NY nuisance evictions mentioned above:

...
The Institute for Justice (IJ) represents two victims of Granite City’s compulsory-eviction law. For years, Debi Brumit and Andy Simpson lived in a private rental property in the city. In 2019, however, one of Debi’s adult daughters was arrested within city limits for trying to steal a van. Debi and Andy had nothing to do with the crime. Debi’s daughter did not even live with them. But because the daughter was listed on their occupancy permit, Granite City ordered Debi and Andy’s landlord to evict them—along with two of Debi’s grandchildren (at the time, a toddler and an infant). Only after IJ secured a temporary restraining order against the city were Debi and Andy able to stay in their home.


Their experience was far from unique. In 2019, for example, Granite City ordered an entire family’s eviction because one family member kicked a police officer’s shin at a church picnic. The city ordered another household’s eviction because a member shoplifted from the Wal-Mart across town. It ordered another’s eviction because one household member drove drunk. And another’s because a guest stole mail from a front porch. It ordered a woman’s eviction because her child’s father was caught with drugs and he often would care for their son at her home. It ordered a father’s (and four children’s) eviction because his wife was caught with drugs within city limits.


Between 2014 and 2019, the city issued more than 300 compulsory-eviction orders against families living within its borders. Many of those evictions were based on crimes that did not take place at the rental homes targeted for eviction.


“Too often, Granite City treated innocent children, husbands, wives, parents, siblings, and loved ones as collateral damage,” said IJ Attorney Caroline Grace Brothers. “In the name of expelling the culpable, Granite City visited life-altering punishments on the blameless. It should go without saying that ‘guilt by association’ is not a legitimate law-enforcement tactic, and we’re confident the court of appeals will agree.”


Shortly after Debi and Andy filed their lawsuit, Granite City repealed its compulsory-eviction law. But the city has continued to defend the law vigorously and last year elevated its “Crime Free Housing Officer” to city mayor. Similar crime-free housing ordinances are common throughout the state of Illinois, and in recent years, crime-free programs have faced a flood of litigation and criticism nationwide. In 2019, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the city of Hesperia, California, over a crime-free ordinance that allegedly discriminated against Black and Latino renters. One of the leading scholars of crime-free programs has warned that “crime-free housing ordinances will intensify scrutiny and increase adverse police interactions, turning everyday interactions into sources of anxiety, trauma, and indignity.” Last year, Tampa, Florida, restructured its voluntary crime-free program in response to widespread public outcry.
...

So I guess I should add to this statement:

Re the part I bolded: holding property owners responsible for the actions of criminals seems to be a popular idea but it's still not one I share.

That holding property renters responsible for the actions of criminals is also a popular idea but still not one I share. Glad to see Kochy nutjobs fighting it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Hesperia Sued Again



An "annual police inspection" is another "administrative search" and the fourth amendment problem should be obvious.

This isn't the first legal problem for this rule.



I'm happy as usual to see ACLU Inc exercising its corporate first amendment rights in this time-honored way.



My view as a landlord is that if others turn down good tenants for stupid reasons, that leaves more good tenants for those like me who will not.

Apparently, an unacceptably large percentage of Hesperia landlords felt the same way, prompting the city action.

Hesperia lost again

City That Forced Landlords To Evict Tenants Suspected of Crimes Will Pay $1 Million To Settle DOJ Lawsuit

...
On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement agreement with Hesperia, California, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department that unwinds the last vestiges of a local program that required landlords to evict tenants suspected of committing crimes—regardless of whether they'd been convicted or even charged with anything.

The settlement will require the city and sheriff's department to spend $670,000 compensating people harmed by the ordinance. The defendants will have to spend another $300,000 in fines and on community programs and marketing to promote fair housing.

"'Crime-free' ordinances may also constitute a discriminatory solution in search of a problem and run afoul of the core goals underlying the Fair Housing Act," said the DOJ's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke in a press release announcing the settlement.
...

So that's nice.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Not any more.

City of Zion Changes Rental Inspection Law Following Lawsuit from Institute for Justice



I guess the phrase "the people" in the fourth amendment means "even renters," so that's nice.

The lawsuit that prompted the change in law has been resolved.

Victory: Zion Can No Longer Punish Landlords, Tenants for Opposing Warrantless Inspections of Their Homes

ZION, Ill.—Last Friday, a judge ratified a consent decree which mandates that the city of Zion, Illinois, will no longer punish renters or landlords who refuse to open their doors to warrantless rental inspections. The consent decree is the conclusion of a lawsuit brought on behalf of Zion landlord Josefina Lozano and her tenants Dorice and Robert Pierce by the Institute for Justice (IJ) challenging the city’s prior rental inspection ordinance.


“This consent decree is a massive victory for the basic privacy rights and property rights of renters and landlords in Zion,” said IJ Nutjob Rob Peccola. “If the government wants to pry into your personal spaces, revealing intimate details about your life, it should have to get a warrant.”


Under Zion’s old rental inspection law, individuals were required to open their doors to rental inspectors who could snoop around their homes without a warrant. If they refused to let city officials in or asked them to get a warrant, they were subject to daily fines of up to $750, and the city had a track record of running those fines up into astonishing six-figure sums.


“These massive fines were absolutely crippling for Zion residents who simply wanted to stand up for their constitutional rights,” said IJ Nutjob John Wrench.


In April of this year, the Zion City Council unanimously agreed to amend its rental inspection law, ending the practice of fining landlords if they refused a warrantless rental inspection. Today’s consent decree ensures that the city will never again fine individuals who refuse inspections and ensures that landlords and tenants have a right to decline opening their doors to city officials without a warrant.
...

Glad to see another victory in court for the Kochy nutjobs. Some say bullshitters don't do well in courtrooms. I don't know if we need to call the other side names. But they didn't do well, you do the math...

 

[Raz'r]

Also boring, it seems, but it's pretty funny to me that San Fran is forcing a guy to rebuild a historic home he tore down.

We have a Punta Gorda historic district that would react the same way. It's charming as hell unless you want to repair your old house.

The look of pre WWII FL Crackershacks apparently has historic significance. This is funny to me because I'm typing from one right now. My office was built in the 1930's as a home in Port Charlotte. In the 1980's a church bought the historic building with the intention of expanding their parking lot. They put up an ad saying, basically, "Anyone who wants a free house, please come and take it." My mom bit. So it was transported here instead of meeting the end of most of these historic buildings: a bulldozer.



Isn't "historic laundromat" oxymoronic? And other kinds of moronic?

I looked into buying a “historic home” once. Worse than a HOA. No sympathy for the owner.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Getting back to zoning disputes,

Sierra Vista Residents Sue City to Keep Their Homes in Place



Amanda Root sounds like a real piece of trailer trash, what with wanting to live in and care for her own home on her own property and all.

Arizona Supreme Court Revives Sierra Vista Residents’ Lawsuit to Save Their Homes

In a short order issued today, the Arizona Supreme Court revived a lawsuit filed by Sierra Vista residents who are at risk of losing their homes to a city law. Nealy two years ago, Amanda Root and Georgia and Grandy Montgomery—along with the Montgomerys’ landlord Al Parrish—filed a lawsuit with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to protect their property rights under the Arizona Constitution.


The suit was dismissed by the superior court on the grounds that they could not sue to protect their rights; instead, they had to wait for the city to sue them. And the appeals court ruled they could not even appeal that decision. The Supreme Court today overturned the appeals court decision and asked the judges to reconsider the case in light of another recent victory by IJ.


“Sierra Vista’s attempt to kick people out of their homes in the middle of the pandemic was cruel and unconstitutional,” said Paul Avelar, managing nutjob of IJ’s Arizona office. “The threat of homelessness still hangs over our clients, and Arizona courts should not be indifferent to their property rights. That is why we are glad that the Arizona Supreme Court insisted their case must be considered.”
...

Glad to see another victory in court for the Kochy nutjobs. Some say bullshitters don't do well in courtrooms. I don't know if we need to call the other side names. But they didn't do well, you do the math...

That other "recent victory" linked in the story was about the time when Kochy nutjobs won a case saying people can do math without a license.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

In more protection than tenants want or need news,

The Biden Administration Flirts With Imposing Nationwide Rent Control Via Executive Action

...
On Wednesday, the White House released a Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights that lists a wide range of actions federal agencies are taking or considering to "strengthen tenant protections and encourage rental affordability."


The most eye-catching proposal is an announcement that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)—the independent regulator and conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae—would explore ways it could "limit egregious rent increases" going forward at properties with a Fannie- or Freddie-backed mortgage.
...
For all the novel regulatory interventions it's considering, the Biden administration is pretty candid that the root of renters' problems is a lack of housing supply.

"Limited housing supply has created more competition for fewer available units, which gives owners even more leverage in deciding to whom to rent to, what lease terms to offer, and whether and how much to raise rents," reads the White House's blueprint.

Rent control has a history of constricting the supply of rental housing and reducing housing quality.

By pursuing it and other policies that would raise the costs or limit the returns of providing rental housing, the White House's blueprint is likely to limit supply further and exacerbate many of the problems it's trying to fix.

In unrelated news, I'm selling all of our rental properties.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Please hang on to them and see if the IJ will sue Biden on your behalf.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Please hang on to them and see if the IJ will sue Biden on your behalf.

No standing, sorry.