Renters head at least 36% of the nation’s 122.8 million households. Although renters are entitled to the same security and privacy in their homes as homeowners, their Fourth Amendment rights are akin to those of pre-revolutionary colonists under King George III’s all-encompassing “general warrants.” Cities subject renters to mandatory code searches where inspectors—strangers—enter their home without their permission. When a renter demands that the city come back with a warrant, the official can fill out a warrant application listing no individualized probable cause and receive a rubber stamp “administrative warrant.” That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court blessed these watered-down administrative warrants in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967). Once inside, the inspector views everything about the tenant, from medications, holy books, and political tracts, to information about their sex life, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
IJ seeks to restore renters’ Fourth Amendment rights in two ways. First, despite Camara’s lax standards, cities often avoid seeking warrants altogether in favor of punishing landlords. In 1998, IJ successfully challenged Park Forest, Illinois’s Rental Inspection program, which exacted a $60 fee when renters requested that officials get a warrant. Another federal judge in Illinois affirmed the standing of IJ’s clients to sue the city of Zion, Illinois, where the city threatened a landlord with ruinous fines when her tenants demanded a search warrant.
Second, IJ is striving to convince state high courts, often supported by constitutions with stronger privacy protections than the Fourth Amendment, to reject Camara and require that officials obtain real warrants based on individualized probable cause before entering people’s homes.
- IJ represents tenants and landlords challenging Pottstown, Pennsylvania’s rental inspection program under the Pennsylvania constitution, which predates the federal constitution and protects privacy to a greater degree.
- Iowa’s constitution also provides more protection than the Fourth Amendment. Threatened with administrative warrants, IJ’s clients sued Orange City, Iowa, to assert their rights.
- Under the Washington constitution, the government must have a warrant before searching someone’s home, whether it is reasonable or not. IJ sued Seattle when it tried to get around the warrant requirement by punishing landlords with fines, and tenants with more burdensome searches. Seattle amended its ordinance in response.
Young people, racial and ethnic minorities, and those with lower incomes are more likely to rent. That doesn’t make them second-class citizens with respect to their right to be secure. IJ’s Project on the Fourth Amendment will work to ensure that state and local governments treat them no differently than homeowners when it comes to their privacy rights.
Rental Inspections Cases
Orange City, Iowa, Rental Inspections
Landlords and tenants in Orange City, Iowa are forced to open their doors to government officials without a warrant, simply because the property is a rental. This intrusive rule violates the Fourth Amendment, and that’s why a group of tenants have joined forces with IJ to fight back against this unconstitutional rental inspection ordinance.
Landlord and Tenants Sue Illinois City Challenging Unconstitutional Home Inspections
Josefina Lozano and three of her tenants have joined with IJ to file a federal lawsuit to shut down the city of Zion’s warrantless inspection program, which allows the city to intrude on the privacy rights of tenants and landlords without a warrant.
Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Seattle’s Mandatory Rental Inspection Law
A group of landlords and tenants worked together with IJ to challenge a Seattle law that allows city officials to inspect rental properties without a warrant. Unfortunately, after minor reforms were made, a court allowed this invasive law to stand.
Pennsylvania Tenants and Landlord Challenge Unconstitutional Inspections of Homes
Pottstown, Pennsylvania has a rental inspection law that forces landlords and tenants to open their properties and homes to submit to intrusive inspections. On behalf of multiple tenants and a landlord, IJ is challenging this intrusive law that violates the Fourth Amendment.
