|
Council President Kathy Lantry
St. Paul City Council
City Hall
Room 320-C
St. Paul, MN 55102
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Dear Council President Lantry,
I am writing in regards to the proposed legislation outlining changes to the City Building Code and Inspection guidelines. The ACLU-MN recognizes the general need for rental housing inspections for the protection of renters throughout the city; however, we are concerned that current ordinances, and the proposed ordinance do not adequately ensure that inspections take place in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. The proposed process for inspections of single-family and duplex rental properties, and the current ordinance governing inspections of multi-family dwellings appear to violate the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
The goal of proposed changes are to allow the fire marshal to enter one and two-dwelling rental units in order to assess whether they satisfy city safety regulations. The proposal does not require notice to tenants; nor does it require the consent of tenants or a procedure to obtain an administrative warrant based on probable cause when a tenant refuses consent.
The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy rights of residents in their homes. This privacy right extends to tenants who live in rental property. In Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that city inspections are "searches" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The Court went on to hold that such searches were permissible as long as they were done pursuant to the consent of the tenant, or the inspection was done pursuant to an administrative search warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S.523, 538, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1736, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). Probable cause to justify an administrative search warrant must be assessed according to factors such the passage of time, the nature of the building, or the condition of the entire area.
Tenants in St. Paul should have the right to understand that the City is intruding upon their privacy and the reasons for the intrusion. The tenants of the rental properties need to be informed prior to the proposed inspection so that they can effectively exercise their rights under the Fourth Amendment. As it stands, the ordinance does not make it necessary to provide that notice to them, much less the opportunity to refuse entry absent an administrative warrant. It appears that the only provision regarding how inspections are carried out is a requirement that the inspection be conducted during reasonable hours of the day.
While we do not believe that it is the current practice of city inspectors to enter homes in violation of the Fourth Amendment, there does not appear to be anything in current ordinances or the proposed ordinance that would prohibit inspections absent consent or a warrant. While current practice may satisfy the Fourth Amendment, the City Council has the authority and an obligation to establish procedures and set parameters that bureaucrats must follow to conform their actions to the Fourth Amendment.
We applaud the City’s effort to advance the important goal of safety for its residents. We respectfully urge you to include provisions that will adequately protect the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of those residents. Providing those necessary protections will not affect the ability of the City to could still pursue its goals while protecting the rights of its residents.
The ACLU-MN is available to assist with these issues should the need arise. While we cannot act as your attorney, we would be happy to provide you with our perspective and expertise in this area. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.
Sincerely,
Charles Samuelson
Executive DirectoR