Non-Profit Public Interest Law Firm's Lawsuit: Municipality's Inspection Requirement As Condition For Issuing Rental License Violates Landlord's, Tenants' 4th Amendment Privacy Rights; Inspectors Seeking Entry Into Premises Told To Quit Snooping Around & Take A Hike!

In Highland, California, the Redlands Daily Facts reports:

• A landlord and his tenants have accused the city of violating their Fourth Amendment rights.
  
  Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation(1) filed a complaint [] in U.S. District Court on behalf of property owner Karl Trautwein, accusing city inspectors of attempting to coerce his tenants, DeVondra and James Gill, into allowing a warrantless inspection of the property in order to issue the property’s rental license.
  
  According to the complaint, city inspectors made two attempts to inspect the single-family home owned by Trautwein, after he told city workers they did not have permission to inspect the property.
  
  The city now refuses to process the rental license application and has charged Trautwein a $40 reinspection fee, according to the complaint.
  
  “At the end of the day it’s about privacy and all these private places they don’t want government officials snooping around,” said Wen Fa, staff attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates cases involving property and civil rights for clients at no charge.
  
  Highland’s residential rental program requires property owners to obtain a rental license through the city. There must be a full inspection of the interior and exterior of the property before the city will approve the license.
  
  If a tenant or property owner refuses to allow an inspection, the city will obtain a warrant, according to the city code.
  
  In April 2015, Trautwein applied for a rental license for the home, which has been rented by the Gills since 2011, and paid the $161 application fee. He noted on the application that the city did not have permission to enter the property.
  
  When the Gills refused to let city inspectors into the home, they were told their landlord would “get in trouble,” according to the complaint.
  
  The city later sent Trautwein a letter informing him that he owed a $40 reinspection fee for the two missed inspections and could be cited.
  
  Trautwein sent a letter back to the city, restating that it did not have permission to inspect the property due to privacy concerns.
  
  Craig A. Steele, Highland’s city attorney, said in an email that the city was served [] with the lawsuit but had yet to evaluate it. He said he could not comment on the specifics of the case.
  
  Generally, Steele said, the city has worked successfully and cooperatively with most rental property owners in the city to ensure that rental housing is safe and habitable.
  
  “I would think that landlords in the rental housing business would welcome health and safety inspections of their business locations, just as inspections are conducted at other commercial businesses in the city,” he said.
  
  The city will evaluate the complaint and respond in a timely manner, he said.
  
  Trautwein is not seeking any monetary damages, but rather a court order calling the city’s action unconstitutional and demanding it stop attempting to conduct warrantless searches.
  
  “This lawsuit is for principle, that’s why we don’t want monetary damages,” Fa said. “We want the court to tell the city to stop and we want the court to issue a declaration that what the city is doing violates the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in this case.”
  
  In his letter to the city, Trautwein said the home was a vacant foreclosure that he improved and rented to a responsible tenant.
  
  “We pride ourselves in taking care of any maintenance issues at the homes we manage,” he wrote.

Source: Highland landlord, tenants accusing city of violating Fourth Amendment rights.

See also, Highland is sued for attempting warrantless snooping on rental property (go here for podcast).

For the lawsuit, see Trautwein v. City of Highland, et al.

--------------------

(1) Pacific Legal Foundation is a non-profit, public interest law firm that fights for limited government, property rights, individual rights and a balanced approach to environmental protection. Donor-supported, this firm represents all clients free of charge.