Trying to be fair and reasonable.

[lenkevy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Recently, I received a letter from the city stating that my home may be in violation of a building code. I believe there is a strong possibility that the accuser is a city employee who was proactively looking for possible offenses.

Question 1: Does the very act of sending the letter need to be based on probable cause?

Why I ask: It seems reasonable that probable cause must exist, otherwise, the city can send letters out on anything they want to and hope something sticks.

Question 2: If it turns out that there was no probable cause, what kind of case might I have? Is it a civil matter? (I'd rather not have to name an individual officer).

Why I ask: The potential permit issue is secondary to me. What really ticks me off is that the City may be running all around my home town sending letters to residents without any probable cause in hopes of raising badly needed revenue.

Question 3: Can I ask for renumeration for time away from work and/or additional compensation/punitive damages?

Why I ask: I don't know what is a fair and reasonable expectation. I am seriously thinking of getting a court order to find out who made the complaint. If it turns out to be a city employee, I will be upset because I strongly feel there is absolutely NO probable cause in my case. I've complained to several officers. They have not responded. Can I get paid for my time, hassle, emotional expense, etc. etc? Plus, quite frankly, I think a strong message should be sent.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[tranquility]

There would not need to be probable cause in any way. The only question is if your house violated the code. If not, tell them. If so, fix it.

The city can send out letters all they want. Governmental immunity will protect them as there is nothing here any tort act giving the right to sue would cover.

[justalayman]

lenkevy;2312602]What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Recently, I received a letter from the city stating that my home may be in violation of a building code. I believe there is a strong possibility that the accuser is a city employee who was proactively looking for possible offenses

. So, what code did they say you have violated and have you in fact violated such code?

Question 1: Does the very act of sending the letter need to be based on probable cause?

Huh? If they send a violation notice, you will have to presume they have reason to believe there is a code violation. That is all there is to it.

Why I ask: It seems reasonable that probable cause must exist, otherwise, the city can send letters out on anything they want to and hope something sticks.

You make absolutely no sense. Either there is a violation or there isn't. If there isn't, show them or tell them to get lost. Your choice. They will follow accordingly. If there is a violation, it would make sense to remedy such.

Question 2: If it turns out that there was no probable cause, what kind of case might I have? Is it a civil matter? (I'd rather not have to name an individual officer).

Again, you and probable cause. No. They do not need probable cause. They can be fishing if they want. At some time such an expedition would become harassment but since you do not want to explain anything, I suggest it has not reached that point.

Why I ask: The potential permit issue is secondary to me. What really ticks me off is that the City may be running all around my home town sending letters to residents without any probable cause in hopes of raising badly needed revenue.

what potential permit issue? Either explain what you are talking about or expect less than complete and applicable answers.

Question 3: Can I ask for renumeration for time away from work and/or additional compensation/punitive damages?

for what? because you have a code violation and you have to remedy such? no.

Why I ask: I don't know what is a fair and reasonable expectation

.fair and reasonable for what? So far you have said nothing that would even warrant the inclusion of such a question.

I am seriously thinking of getting a court order to find out who made the complaint.

go for it. it makes no difference who made whatever complaint you speak of as long as it was not done simply to harass.

If it turns out to be a city employee, I will be upset because I strongly feel there is absolutely NO probable cause in my case

. PC for what.

I've complained to several officers. They have not responded.

What? You think this is a criminal matter? Not even close.

Can I get paid for my time, hassle, emotional expense, etc. etc?

I don't know. Is your mom willing to pay for such things? If not, there is nobody else that owes you anything.

Plus, quite frankly, I think a strong message should be sent.

Um, for what? You have done nothing to explain the situation yet you want sympathy for some unknown injury. You expect a lot.

You might want to explain what you are talking about. As it stands, you sound a bit paranoid.

[lenkevy]

Wow. That was insightful and articulate. You must be an extremely successful attorney. Thanks.

[lenkevy]

Thank you (really).

Let me ask a follow up question or challenge. You wrote: The city can send out letters all they want.

At what point would doing so constitute harassment? There is some point, I would think, the city can NOT send out all the letters they want.

Also, do you feel that the city can simply do a mass mailer to every resident?

Taking your comment to an extreme shows there is a line somewhere out there. Agree or not?

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by lenkevy

Thank you (really).

Let me ask a follow up question or challenge. You wrote: The city can send out letters all they want.

At what point would doing so constitute harassment? There is some point, I would think, the city can NOT send out all the letters they want.

Also, do you feel that the city can simply do a mass mailer to every resident?

Taking your comment to an extreme shows there is a line somewhere out there. Agree or not?

the city is, generally, not going to bother with such actions unless they have reason to believe there is support for their actions. Too much of a waste of time.

The fact you continue to dodge any attempt to explain supports my read that you are simply pissed because you got caught trying to cheat the system and are trying to fight the system without fighting the charge.


If you want an answer to your questions, you are going to have to be more specific in the situation. Hypothetical questions begat hypothetical answers. Neither is truly worth much of anything.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by lenkevy

At what point would doing so constitute harassment? There is some point, I would think, the city can NOT send out all the letters they want.

There is no crime of mail harassment in CA so you are free to toss it away like you would junk mail should you wish. However, first class mail is still considered legally reliable for the delivery of such courtesy notices so you could still be held accountable for the information contained within.

If you feel you are being unfairly picked on, you can speak to whomever is in charge of this agency or officer at the city. Be prepared to show some proof that the articulated problems have been corrected or never existed - permitting an inspection would probably prove that.

Also, do you feel that the city can simply do a mass mailer to every resident?

Why would they? Unless they were sending out an informational brochure, why would they mail out a mass accusation to every resident? It's expensive and would tick off a lot of people who are within compliance.

As Tranquility mentioned, the city can send out these letters all they want. I do not know of any city that will go through the expense of creating and mailing these letters without some reason (even if weak) to believe that there is a violation of some sort. It takes time and money to prepare and mail these letters and then to conduct follow-up on each case.

If you feel that you are being targeted as a result of some personal vendetta, then you need to speak to this someone's supervisor.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by lenkevy

Question 1: Does the very act of sending the letter need to be based on probable cause?

No. Most are based upon some form of reasonable suspicion at the very least, but probable cause for a warning letter is not a legal necessity.

And I am trying to figure out what you mean that the person was "proactively" looking for offenses? That's what they do - they look for offenses. If my code enforcement officers sat around waiting for tips or for homes to cave in or property to burn, they'd be fired. It's their job to be proactive.

Why I ask: It seems reasonable that probable cause must exist, otherwise, the city can send letters out on anything they want to and hope something sticks.

Well, they COULD, but that would be expensive and foolish. It would be difficult to articulate a specific offense in a mass mailing without making it up out of whole cloth.

Question 2: If it turns out that there was no probable cause, what kind of case might I have? Is it a civil matter? (I'd rather not have to name an individual officer).

There is no case.

Why I ask: The potential permit issue is secondary to me. What really ticks me off is that the City may be running all around my home town sending letters to residents without any probable cause in hopes of raising badly needed revenue.

If there has been work done for which a permit was required and not obtained, this is an area of legitimate complaint for the city. It can also be an issue for you. if the area for which work was done required a permit, and none was obtained, it can not only effect your ability to sell the property it may effect your ability to recover any damages should that portion of the home be damaged in a fire or other disaster. I know of one family here where their house was devastated by fire and their insurer was not legally obligated to pay because the fire occurred on an enclosed porch that was converted into a room without proper inspection and permits - the fire originated from the wiring in that room ... they suffered a hit of about $30,000 with no compensation as a result.

I found it annoying that I needed to get a permit to put in wood paneling on my floors, but did it anyway. I suspect the city is not going to concern itself with carpets and flooring, but if you had a roof or home addition (or something significant) they are likely to be able to articulate sufficient cause to obtain a search warrant for the inspections should it come down to that.

Question 3: Can I ask for renumeration for time away from work and/or additional compensation/punitive damages?

Since you cannot sue over this, no.

Why I ask: I don't know what is a fair and reasonable expectation. I am seriously thinking of getting a court order to find out who made the complaint. If it turns out to be a city employee, I will be upset because I strongly feel there is absolutely NO probable cause in my case.

What law says that city employees cannot report code violations?

I am a city employee and I can report them ... in fact, I supervise Code Enforcement. Should that render me incapable of reporting potential code violations?

- Carl

[tranquility]

I pretty much agree with Justalayman and CdwJava here with one exception. The city does not need a reason. Not even a reasonable suspicion.

We get letters all the time from the state and federal government "warning" us of small business fraud and the like on tax returns or to make sure out-of-state purchases has the use tax paid. We get these letters because we prepare tax returns. There is nothing to indicate we had anything to do with this, it is just a general letter sent out to all tax preparers.

Also, I'm warned about water usage every month and the landscape watering rules. Many others too. No problem.

Many clients get letters from the city they live in who have a schedule C and didn't list a location. The city wants their business license tax. (They often give a removal of penalty if the person comes forward after the letter.) If you don't answer appropriately, they come looking. No PC, just living in the city and filing a schedule C.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I pretty much agree with Justalayman and CdwJava here with one exception. The city does not need a reason. Not even a reasonable suspicion.
.

as I went back and re-read the original post, I did see that I had misread what the letter contained. While I read though it that there was a code violation, the letter did state there "may be" a code violation.

that does change my response a bit but not much.

since it is "may be", OP would have no requirement to prove there is or isn't a violation until such time the gov has some proof and is able to demand an inspection (through the courts). Due to that, OP can ignore the letter if they want but, as you state T, there is no harassment.


I suspect somebody turned OP in for some code violation. If it is not obvious from public view, the city would have to obtain a courts order to inspect. If the reporter is a reputable person, that may be enough to obtain such an order, depending on what the possible violation may be.


So, to make it simple:

Question 1: Does the very act of sending the letter need to be based on probable cause?

No.

Question 2: If it turns out that there was no probable cause, what kind of case might I have? Is it a civil matter? (I'd rather not have to name an individual officer).

none, n/a

Question 3: Can I ask for renumeration for time away from work and/or additional compensation/punitive damages?

You can ask for that just as well as you can ask the sun to stop shining. You have an equal chance of having either of your requests granted.