Fire Sprinkler inspections

[Dave2]

What is the name of your state? Seattle, Washington, which is in King County

Hi

First off I own the apartment we live in it is in a condo association (NOT Coop). My wife and I fully own our apartment no bank or other 3rd party involved 100% paid for. It is a condo building of 50 units with a community board with a management company managing day to day issues and business needs.

Recently we had a fire sprinkler inspection and of the 50 units about 22 or 23 units did not let the inspecting agent in for whatever reason.

Then a few weeks ago the building management company got notice from the Fire Department that we needed to comply with the inspection demand or risk a criminal gross misdemeanor (maximum $5,000 fine/up to one year imprisonment) or a civil violation (maximum $1,000 per day per violation) under the Seattle Municipal Code.

Now I understand the reasoning behind the inspection, but my main concern is the Constitutionality of these sort of inspections under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Part of these inspections no doubt look for code violations (which we should not have but....), but can the fire department force upon citizens fire sprinkler inspections threatening fines should they not comply? I was reading the below article off Justia and it would seem even administrative inspections are considered not allowed if I object meaning if I object they have to go get a court order to perform the inspection.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/05-searches-and-inspections-in-noncriminal-cases.html

So I am sort of just trying to get a yes or a no answer to if these types of inspections (WITHOUT A COURT WRITTEN ORDER) are considered constitutional or not. Is it something worth taking the time to pay a lawyer to look at this case more deeply or would it just be pouring good money out the window as it were?

As I said above I understand the reasoning behind the inspection but it's sort of the way it is being gone about as after all it is looking for code violations as well as if the systems in working order.

Thanks
Dave

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state? Seattle, Washington, which is in King County

Hi

First off I own the apartment we live in it is in a condo association (NOT Coop). My wife and I fully own our apartment no bank or other 3rd party involved 100% paid for. It is a condo building of 50 units with a community board with a management company managing day to day issues and business needs.

Recently we had a fire sprinkler inspection and of the 50 units about 22 or 23 units did not let the inspecting agent in for whatever reason.

Then a few weeks ago the building management company got notice from the Fire Department that we needed to comply with the inspection demand or risk a criminal gross misdemeanor (maximum $5,000 fine/up to one year imprisonment) or a civil violation (maximum $1,000 per day per violation) under the Seattle Municipal Code.

Now I understand the reasoning behind the inspection, but my main concern is the Constitutionality of these sort of inspections under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Part of these inspections no doubt look for code violations (which we should not have but....), but can the fire department force upon citizens fire sprinkler inspections threatening fines should they not comply? I was reading the below article off Justia and it would seem even administrative inspections are considered not allowed if I object meaning if I object they have to go get a court order to perform the inspection.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/05-searches-and-inspections-in-noncriminal-cases.html

So I am sort of just trying to get a yes or a no answer to if these types of inspections (WITHOUT A COURT WRITTEN ORDER) are considered constitutional or not. Is it something worth taking the time to pay a lawyer to look at this case more deeply or would it just be pouring good money out the window as it were?

As I said above I understand the reasoning behind the inspection but it's sort of the way it is being gone about as after all it is looking for code violations as well as if the systems in working order.

Thanks
Dave

It is not unconstitutional.

 

[Dave2]

Reasoning just so I can better understand.

 

[LdiJ]

I know that on a commercial level in most communities that sort of inspection is normal. By making sure that fire suppression systems are working on a commercial level it ensures that your neighbors are protected from fire breaking out in your unit. I have to assume that the rationale is the same for apartments or condo buildings.

That sort of thing is usually a local ordinance which would have some variations from locality to locality.

 

[Dave2]

I know that on a commercial level in most communities that sort of inspection is normal. By making sure that fire suppression systems are working on a commercial level it ensures that your neighbors are protected from fire breaking out in your unit. I have to assume that the rationale is the same for apartments or condo buildings.

That sort of thing is usually a local ordinance which would have some variations from locality to locality.

OK Thanks and yeah this is sort of why I was asking based on the link I sent in the OP one line stuck out at me which read

But, in 1967, the Court in two cases held that administrative inspections to detect building code violations must be undertaken pursuant to warrant if the occupant objects.

hence my curiosity.

But what you said was sort of my thinking as to the rationale for the inspection.

 

[FarmerJ]

Personally id be more worried about my home owners insurance coverage and the chance that the insurance company could possibly learn that I declined allow a routine inspection of my units sprinklers since insurance companys tend to look for ways to reduce payouts I cant help but wonder if they would use a refused inspection as a reason to try to refuse coverage or even flat out deny it.

 

[LdiJ]

Personally id be more worried about my home owners insurance coverage and the chance that the insurance company could possibly learn that I declined allow a routine inspection of my units sprinklers since insurance companys tend to look for ways to reduce payouts I cant help but wonder if they would use a refused inspection as a reason to try to refuse coverage or even flat out deny it.

Which is another really good reason to cooperate with inspections.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Seattle, Washington, which is in King County

Hi

First off I own the apartment we live in it is in a condo association (NOT Coop). My wife and I fully own our apartment no bank or other 3rd party involved 100% paid for. It is a condo building of 50 units with a community board with a management company managing day to day issues and business needs.

Recently we had a fire sprinkler inspection and of the 50 units about 22 or 23 units did not let the inspecting agent in for whatever reason.

Then a few weeks ago the building management company got notice from the Fire Department that we needed to comply with the inspection demand or risk a criminal gross misdemeanor (maximum $5,000 fine/up to one year imprisonment) or a civil violation (maximum $1,000 per day per violation) under the Seattle Municipal Code.

Now I understand the reasoning behind the inspection, but my main concern is the Constitutionality of these sort of inspections under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Part of these inspections no doubt look for code violations (which we should not have but....), but can the fire department force upon citizens fire sprinkler inspections threatening fines should they not comply? I was reading the below article off Justia and it would seem even administrative inspections are considered not allowed if I object meaning if I object they have to go get a court order to perform the inspection.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/05-searches-and-inspections-in-noncriminal-cases.html

So I am sort of just trying to get a yes or a no answer to if these types of inspections (WITHOUT A COURT WRITTEN ORDER) are considered constitutional or not. Is it something worth taking the time to pay a lawyer to look at this case more deeply or would it just be pouring good money out the window as it were?

As I said above I understand the reasoning behind the inspection but it's sort of the way it is being gone about as after all it is looking for code violations as well as if the systems in working order.

Thanks
Dave

You own an apartment in the building but not the building, correct?

The Seattle Fire Department inspects multifamily residential buildings and commercial and industrial buildings to ensure these buildings meet Seattle’s minimum fire safety standards. The Seattle Fire Department does not, on the other hand, inspect detached houses designed for occupancy by one or two families.

To require the same type of inspections (of owner occupied detached homes) that are required by the Fire Code for multifamily residential buildings would be an illegal search without consent of the homeowners or, in absent of consent, without warrants.

Your concern is that, if you do not consent to an inspection of your owned apartment, you can be fined. I believe it is only because you do not own the building that your consent is not required. You will have to read your purchase documents to see what rights the building owner retained with the sale. The building owner should have retained the right to protect his property through inspections (with his mortgage company probably requiring certain inspections). Your residence is a part of this property.

If you refuse inspection and are fined, however, you have the right to appeal.

Here is a link to information and downloads to documents filed in Institute for Justice v. Seattle, a 2018 class action suit over the legality of Seattle’s ordinance and warrantless inspections:

https://ij.org/case/seattle-rental-inspections/

 

[Dave2]

Personally id be more worried about my home owners insurance coverage and the chance that the insurance company could possibly learn that I declined allow a routine inspection of my units sprinklers since insurance companys tend to look for ways to reduce payouts I cant help but wonder if they would use a refused inspection as a reason to try to refuse coverage or even flat out deny it.

Never had home owners and probably never will. Just a personal choice maybe not wise especially living in an apartment building but just my wife and I's personal opinions on that. Mainly being in this building not such a huge issue for the unit itself as covered in the building insurance for the unit itself would just be the contents really anyways from what I understand from past public board meetings Short of us being the cause of the fire of other issue.

 

[Dave2]

You own an apartment in the building but not the building, correct?

The Seattle Fire Department inspects multifamily residential buildings and commercial and industrial buildings to ensure these buildings meet Seattle’s minimum fire safety standards. The Seattle Fire Department does not, on the other hand, inspect detached houses designed for occupancy by one or two families.

To require the same type of inspections (of owner occupied detached homes) that are required by the Fire Code for multifamily residential buildings would be an illegal search without consent of the homeowners or, in absent of consent, without warrants.

Your concern is that, if you do not consent to an inspection of your owned apartment, you can be fined. I believe it is only because you do not own the building that your consent is not required. You will have to read your purchase documents to see what rights the building owner retained with the sale. The building owner should have retained the right to protect his property through inspections (with his mortgage company probably requiring certain inspections). Your residence is a part of this property.

If you refuse inspection and are fined, however, you have the right to appeal.

Here is a link to information and downloads to documents filed in Institute for Justice v. Seattle, a 2018 class action suit over the legality of Seattle’s ordinance and warrantless inspections:

https://ij.org/case/seattle-rental-inspections/

Right just the unit which as I said is partly why I suspected from the start that it would be because it is multi unit building (50) but as you said had it been a home there would be constitutional issues for them to do this reason I got curious where apartments stand in the grand scheme of the Constitution and 4th Amendment in particular. Cause I know the board has tried pulling stunts in the past where they try and demand entry and I have told them to well you get that picture. But where this one was city related figure it might be different.

 

[quincy]

Right just the unit which as I said is partly why I suspected from the start that it would be because it is multi unit building (50) but as you said had it been a home there would be constitutional issues for them to do this reason I got curious where apartments stand in the grand scheme of the Constitution and 4th Amendment in particular. Cause I know the board has tried pulling stunts in the past where they try and demand entry and I have told them to well you get that picture. But where this one was city related figure it might be different.

Well ... the Institute for Justice has seen a problem with the Seattle inspection ordinances, hence the class action lawsuit they filed on behalf of tenants who felt their rights were being violated.

The lawsuit argues that there needs to be consent or a warrant before a residence can be “inspected,” this whether the residence is a single family detached home or a rental unit in a multifamily apartment building. Inspections are the same as searches.

I am just not sure where you fall as a homeowner living in a multifamily building. You will have to look over your purchase papers, just as the tenants in the other condos will have to look at their rental agreements. Consent to inspections can be given orally at the time of inspection but it can also be written consent given as part of the lease agreement (and, potentially, a purchase agreement).

The fines assessed by Seattle seem a bit steep, and I understand they are to increase in 2020 - this if the fire inspection ordinance survives challenges.

You really should have homeowners insurance, by the way.

 

[Dave2]

Well ... the Institute for Justice has seen a problem with the Seattle inspection ordinances, hence the class action lawsuit they filed on behalf of tenants who felt their rights were being violated.

The lawsuit argues that there needs to be consent or a warrant before a residence can be “inspected,” this whether the residence is a single family detached home or a rental unit in a multifamily apartment building. Inspections are the same as searches.

I am just not sure where you fall as a homeowner living in a multifamily building. You will have to look over your purchase papers, just as the tenants in the other condos will have to look at their rental agreements. Consent to inspections can be given orally at the time of inspection but it can also be written consent given as part of the lease agreement (and, potentially, a purchase agreement).

The fines assessed by Seattle seem a bit steep, and I understand they are to increase in 2020 - this if the fire inspection ordinance survives challenges.

You really should have homeowners insurance, by the way.

Yeah see seems the case you mentioned might be falling under the same sourt of Supreme Court case I referenced where even administrative type inspections can be objected to, but from what I read it wasn't clear if they also included multi family dwellings like an apartment/condo building.

One thing that bugs me a bit is I know last year the board tried to enter to supposedly clean out dryer vents and I did push back on that so much the board relented as we never use our dryer (Hang dry our clothing) so there was no need to enter our unit to do that and the management company in the process sent out documentation that they had on file but was never part of any sales package we got when we bought the place so was like they had documents hidden from the buyer that the buyer was never even aware of that seemed to let them in but on that one I pushed back at them being as I said we never use the machine except maybe a few minutes every few months just to make sure it's still working plus as I told them they did not need entry into units as it could be all completed from the exterior of the building with todays technology and this year that is exactly what they did they did an external cleaning from the outside vent.

And yeah fines are steep this was in the letter SFD sent out to the management company detailing the units involved and the fines

A violation of the Seattle Fire Code is a criminal gross misdemeanor (maximum $5,000 fine/up to one year imprisonment) or a civil violation (maximum $1,000 per day per violation) under the Seattle Municipal Code.

And thanks for that link above was too tired to look at it last night but checking it now!!

 

[quincy]

Yeah see seems the case you mentioned might be falling under the same sourt of Supreme Court case I referenced where even administrative type inspections can be objected to, but from what I read it wasn't clear if they also included multi family dwellings like an apartment/condo building.

One thing that bugs me a bit is I know last year the board tried to enter to supposedly clean out dryer vents and I did push back on that so much the board relented as we never use our dryer (Hang dry our clothing) so there was no need to enter our unit to do that and the management company in the process sent out documentation that they had on file but was never part of any sales package we got when we bought the place so was like they had documents hidden from the buyer that the buyer was never even aware of that seemed to let them in but on that one I pushed back at them being as I said we never use the machine except maybe a few minutes every few months just to make sure it's still working plus as I told them they did not need entry into units as it could be all completed from the exterior of the building with todays technology and this year that is exactly what they did they did an external cleaning from the outside vent.

And yeah fines are steep this was in the letter SFD sent out to the management company detailing the units involved and the fines


And thanks for that link above was too tired to look at it last night but checking it now!!

The Institute for Justice action in Seattle addresses some interesting privacy issues. The same inspection ordinance challenges are being made in other cities around the country.

There are very few places now where people have privacy. Their homes have always been sacrosanct. The inspection ordinances seem to infringe on this privacy.

 

[Dave2]

The Institute for Justice action in Seattle addresses some interesting privacy issues. The same inspection ordinance challenges are being made in other cities around the country.

There are very few places now where people have privacy. Their homes have always been sacrosanct. The inspection ordinances seem to infringe on this privacy.

And that is alot why I raise this question. And in Seattle it's no surprise they think they can just violate peoples right to privacy with how little liberals here think about the constitution. To many here think it's an antiquated document without modern protections that is unless that protection applies to them. It's insane!

 

[quincy]

And that is alot why I raise this question. And in Seattle it's no surprise they think they can just violate peoples right to privacy with how little liberals here think about the constitution. To many here think it's an antiquated document without modern protections that is unless that protection applies to them. It's insane!

I question your use of “liberals” in your statement about Constitutional rights.