• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Landlord allowed warantless search of home while i slept.

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

mjkelly

Junior Member
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.
 


Son of Slam

Senior Member
Posting a question in the forum?
Follow these rules to ensure your question does not get deleted by forum moderators:
...
Please be civil, brief, and to the point.
Please type in lower case letters
 

mjkelly

Junior Member
I was civil brief and very to the point in the other forum and i was lectured by the moderators for being civil brief and to the point. So this time i was more in depth.

I think this is the most important point:
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?

Last week in the Landlord/Tenant forum:
""HomeGuru: **A: there is more to this story and my opinion is that the landlord was not in violation.
In reply: Yeah there is more to the story but i didnt want to sound longwinded since it says be civil, brief, and to the point.

So.... I was to the point.""
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
mjkelly said:
I was civil brief and very to the point in the other forum and i was lectured by the moderators for being civil brief and to the point. So this time i was more in depth.

I think this is the most important point:
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?

Last week in the Landlord/Tenant forum:
""HomeGuru: **A: there is more to this story and my opinion is that the landlord was not in violation.
In reply: Yeah there is more to the story but i didnt want to sound longwinded since it says be civil, brief, and to the point.

So.... I was to the point.""
**A: and you got my response on your other thread in the L/T forum and then you have posted on this forum. What is the matter with you? You do not post duplicate threads even if it is on a different forum. Additionally, you case is old and boring and the reason no one else responded was because no one else has any further comments.
 

mjkelly

Junior Member
I was hoping that you only covered that forum HomeGuru as your advice is comparable to that of the local public defender. I thought if i posted in the criminal forum i would receive some positive or negative feedback outside of "read the L/T law"

lol read the L/T act. What do you think i did first? What kind of freeadvice is that lol? Then you asked some questions, that i answered, and never followed up. Very constructive. I hope ppl dont pay you for that advice, and you just sit around answering yes or no to all the posts of FREEadvice which is exactly the ammount that your fukcin advice is worth.

My apologies to all except HomeGuru, who IMHO, responds to questions by flipping a coin yes or no. Christ im 19 and i can give better advice than that.
 
Last edited:

HomeGuru

Senior Member
mjkelly said:
I was hoping that you only covered that forum HomeGuru as your advice is comparable to that of the local public defender. I thought if i posted in the criminal forum i would receive some positive or negative feedback outside of "read the L/T law"

lol read the L/T act. What do you think i did first? What kind of freeadvice is that lol? Then you asked some questions, that i answered, and never followed up. Very constructive. I hope ppl dont pay you for that advice, and you just sit around answering yes or no to all the posts of FREEadvice which is exactly the ammount that your fukcin advice is worth.

My apologies to all except HomeGuru, who IMHO, responds to questions by flipping a coin yes or no. Christ im 19 and i can give better advice than that.
**A: hahaha kyjelly, I am the only one that would be willing to answer you with the real advice. But since you shot yourself in the foot, pay an attorney to tell you that.
 

mjkelly

Junior Member
Hah you make it sound like you were actually going to help me.
Pay for a lawyer? All the other information i got was off the internet from lawyers who gave a damm. I didnt pay a penny. Why didnt you know about Camara? Or maybe you did and you were preparing a huge explanation from me, but alas, i shot myself in the foot. All i asked was for someone to look over those summaries i posted and check and see for a second unbiased opinion whether or not they were applicable, but i asked too much.
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
mjkelly said:
Hah you make it sound like you were actually going to help me.
Pay for a lawyer? All the other information i got was off the internet from lawyers who gave a damm. I didnt pay a penny. Why didnt you know about Camara? Or maybe you did and you were preparing a huge explanation from me, but alas, i shot myself in the foot. All i asked was for someone to look over those summaries i posted and check and see for a second unbiased opinion whether or not they were applicable, but i asked too much.
**A: do not come here and expect help with your silly attitude.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top