The information in this blog is not intended to be legal advice. Postings are for informational purposes only and cannot replace specific legal advice from an attorney.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Ordinance Language for Inspections & the Fourth Amendment




Often I see language related to entry onto and inspection of private property in city ordinances. For example:

The authorized employees of the City, bearing proper credentials and identification, shall be permitted to enter all properties for the purpose of inspection, observations, measurement, sampling, and testing.

Another recent example I have found states:

Animal Control Officers shall not enter the private dwelling of an individual for purposes of seizing animals or otherwise enforcing the provisions of this Chapter without first obtaining a search warrant. However, an Animal Control Officer is empowered to enter upon a property adjacent to a private dwelling for purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter.

It’s important to stress that such language is not directly contrary to law. However, in practice, when such language is utilized by city staff to actually obtain entry to private property - problems may occur in some fact situations.

Administrative Inspections and the Fourth Amendment

This type of inspection language may create a false sense of security for staff that all entries onto private property are permitted by city ordinance. Of particular concern are non-public safety staff that perform inspections less frequently than police officers. For example, a city clerk trying to draft a warning letter for nuisances (garbage) on private property.

It is important to remember that even “administrative searches are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” (See Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 523 (1967). The US Constitution Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of persons or property without a search warrant.

There are some important exceptions to this blanket rule (discussed below). Generally, however, under the US Constitution, persons are promised a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” (See Katz v U.S., 389 US 347, 360 (1967). City ordinance provisions cannot and do not override these provisions.

A person’s protections under the Fourth Amendment apply as soon as a city inspector enters what is known as the “curtilage” of the person’s property. The curtilage, historically, is defined as the area adjacent to a person’s house where “intimate activities associated with domestic life and the privacies of the home” take place. Similar protections apply to businesses. (See Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 (1886); United States v Oliver, 466 US 170, 1984; Dunn v U.S., 480 US 294 (1987).

As a result, generally, when city staff must enter private property to enforce an ordinance or perform an inspection one of the following is needed:

1) Permission or voluntary consent from an appropriate person; OR
2) An administrative warrant issued by a court with jurisdiction.

When entering a property with consent, it is important to obtain consent from the right person. Consent should not be obtained from minor children or guests. Consent should be obtained from the person “in control of the property” – this could be a renter or owner, depending on the fact circumstances. If possible, consent should be obtained in writing.

City staff may enter onto private property without consent or a warrant only in very limited circumstances:

1) Emergencies; and
2) To inspect heavily regulated industries (liquor dealers, firearms dealers, junkyards)

Consequences for Fourth Amendment Violations

Entering onto private property in violation of the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment may give rise to legal claims against the city. Sometimes such claims are brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act – also called “1983 Claims.” Civil Rights Act claims can be costly for a city, as they are not subject to state tort law liability limits and may involve the award of attorneys fees to prevailing parties (these can be significant and more costly than the damages award).

Conclusion

Portions of this entry were “borrowed” with permission from the LMC Administrative Searches and Seizures packet. If you would like to obtain a full copy of the packet, please email me at rcarlson@lmc.org.

Picture provided by: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=8475&picture=board-window-grunge

2 comments:

  1. Absolutely fantastic posting! Lots of useful information and inspiration, both of which we all need!Relay appreciate your work.
    www.ashisuncoast.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!Please visit
    desksta

    ReplyDelete