What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania
I posted this in the LL/Tenant section but got no real answers, so now ill come to search and seizure.
Code enforcement showed up w/ my LL to inspect trash outside and to photograph it and tell me to clean it up. I was sleeping. I awoke to find the LL knocking on my bedroom door, i told him i wanted to change and id be out in 2 minutes. I walked outside and he had allowed the code enforcement officers to start searching around my house!@#$% Now, the outside door, that they entered through, was locked. If i had been awake i would have told them to go get a warrant, but i was sleeping.
So they find 2 smoke alarms disconnected, which is against code in this town. They cited us 1100 dollars for each roommate present at the time of the search, which was 3, as the code states. Fine. Im not contestin the code or the violation, but what about the Landlord giving consent to search a tenents home.
Where can i find this, "the Landlord giving consent to search a tenents home.", applied in a ruling, preferably by the supreme court or the 3rd circuit court of appeals?
In the lease it says he may come by during reasonable hours to perform maintenance. I just want to state that, but i dont think it applies in this case as he let Jonny Law into the house with him to search.
I think i covered everything. Heres some references and some brief summaries of some cases i was pointed in the direction towards, with the first case, Camara, being the one of most importance. What do you guys think about all this?
The basic law on the application of warrant requirements to municipal code inspectors is Camara v. Municipal Court of San Fransisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727
18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). This case was overrruled on other grounds not related the warrant issue and the case is still sound law insofar as the holding regarding warrants are concerned.
The Court in that case held:
"In this case, appellants has been charged with a crime for his refusal to permit housing inspectors to enter his leasehold without a warrant. There was no emergency demanding immediate access; in fact, the inspectors made three trips to the building in an attempt to obtain appellant's consent to search. Yet no warrant was obtained and thus appellant was unable to verify either the need for or the appropriate limits of the inspection. No doubt, the inspectors entered the public portion of the building with the consent of the landlord, through the building's manager, but appellee does not contend that such consent was sufficient to authorize inspection of appellant's premises... Assuming the facts to be as the parties have alleged, we therefore conclude that appellant had a constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to search and that appellant may not constitutionally be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection."
Black v. Village of Park Forest
20 F.Supp.2d 1218
N.D.Ill.,1998.
Village's program for inspecting the interiors of tenant-occupied single-family homes was not constrained by "reasonable legislative and administrative standards," and thus was not a valid administrative inspection law under Camara, where the village did not make interior inspections of units in multi-family dwellings or of owner-occupied single-family homes yet gave no good reasons for the differential treatment, and where the village housing code did not limit the scope, purpose, or frequency of the inspections, notwithstanding that no unreasonable searches appeared to have been actually conducted.
For an administrative inspection law to be constrained by "reasonable legislative and administrative standards," as required for it to be valid under Camara, it must at a minimum contain a clear indication of the evils sought to be prevented by the inspection program (presumably supported by some legislative findings indicating that the evils in question exist) and some indication of appropriate parameters for the searches.
Platteville Area Apartment Ass'n v. City of Platteville
179 F.3d 574
C.A.7 (Wis.),1999.
Search warrants for rental property, issued in enforcement of housing code, did not authorize searches of closets and bureau drawers for violations of occupancy limits, where the specified object of the search was that the building inspector was to search for violations of specified sections of the housing code, and the multiple occupancy limitation was in a different chapter of the housing code, despite contention that such limitation was incorporated by reference by reason of the commentary to those sections, as this reference was not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement of particular description; if the building inspector wants to search for violations of the multiple occupancy limitation, he should say so in his application for a search warrant.
U.S. v. Elliott
50 F.3d 180
C.A.2 (Conn.),1995.
Landlord generally does not have common authority over apartment or other dwelling unit leased to a tenant so as to be able to give consent to search, but landlord does have authority to consent to search by police of dwelling units in the building that are not leased and, if landlord has joint access or control over certain areas of the apartment building for most purposes, he may validly
consent to a search of those areas.
I posted this in the LL/Tenant section but got no real answers, so now ill come to search and seizure.
Code enforcement showed up w/ my LL to inspect trash outside and to photograph it and tell me to clean it up. I was sleeping. I awoke to find the LL knocking on my bedroom door, i told him i wanted to change and id be out in 2 minutes. I walked outside and he had allowed the code enforcement officers to start searching around my house!@#$% Now, the outside door, that they entered through, was locked. If i had been awake i would have told them to go get a warrant, but i was sleeping.
So they find 2 smoke alarms disconnected, which is against code in this town. They cited us 1100 dollars for each roommate present at the time of the search, which was 3, as the code states. Fine. Im not contestin the code or the violation, but what about the Landlord giving consent to search a tenents home.
Where can i find this, "the Landlord giving consent to search a tenents home.", applied in a ruling, preferably by the supreme court or the 3rd circuit court of appeals?
In the lease it says he may come by during reasonable hours to perform maintenance. I just want to state that, but i dont think it applies in this case as he let Jonny Law into the house with him to search.
I think i covered everything. Heres some references and some brief summaries of some cases i was pointed in the direction towards, with the first case, Camara, being the one of most importance. What do you guys think about all this?
The basic law on the application of warrant requirements to municipal code inspectors is Camara v. Municipal Court of San Fransisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727
18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). This case was overrruled on other grounds not related the warrant issue and the case is still sound law insofar as the holding regarding warrants are concerned.
The Court in that case held:
"In this case, appellants has been charged with a crime for his refusal to permit housing inspectors to enter his leasehold without a warrant. There was no emergency demanding immediate access; in fact, the inspectors made three trips to the building in an attempt to obtain appellant's consent to search. Yet no warrant was obtained and thus appellant was unable to verify either the need for or the appropriate limits of the inspection. No doubt, the inspectors entered the public portion of the building with the consent of the landlord, through the building's manager, but appellee does not contend that such consent was sufficient to authorize inspection of appellant's premises... Assuming the facts to be as the parties have alleged, we therefore conclude that appellant had a constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to search and that appellant may not constitutionally be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection."
Black v. Village of Park Forest
20 F.Supp.2d 1218
N.D.Ill.,1998.
Village's program for inspecting the interiors of tenant-occupied single-family homes was not constrained by "reasonable legislative and administrative standards," and thus was not a valid administrative inspection law under Camara, where the village did not make interior inspections of units in multi-family dwellings or of owner-occupied single-family homes yet gave no good reasons for the differential treatment, and where the village housing code did not limit the scope, purpose, or frequency of the inspections, notwithstanding that no unreasonable searches appeared to have been actually conducted.
For an administrative inspection law to be constrained by "reasonable legislative and administrative standards," as required for it to be valid under Camara, it must at a minimum contain a clear indication of the evils sought to be prevented by the inspection program (presumably supported by some legislative findings indicating that the evils in question exist) and some indication of appropriate parameters for the searches.
Platteville Area Apartment Ass'n v. City of Platteville
179 F.3d 574
C.A.7 (Wis.),1999.
Search warrants for rental property, issued in enforcement of housing code, did not authorize searches of closets and bureau drawers for violations of occupancy limits, where the specified object of the search was that the building inspector was to search for violations of specified sections of the housing code, and the multiple occupancy limitation was in a different chapter of the housing code, despite contention that such limitation was incorporated by reference by reason of the commentary to those sections, as this reference was not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement of particular description; if the building inspector wants to search for violations of the multiple occupancy limitation, he should say so in his application for a search warrant.
U.S. v. Elliott
50 F.3d 180
C.A.2 (Conn.),1995.
Landlord generally does not have common authority over apartment or other dwelling unit leased to a tenant so as to be able to give consent to search, but landlord does have authority to consent to search by police of dwelling units in the building that are not leased and, if landlord has joint access or control over certain areas of the apartment building for most purposes, he may validly
consent to a search of those areas.