CHEYENNE, Wyo.—Today, the Cheyenne City Council will vote on an ordinance that would allow the city’s fire inspector and chief building officer to seek administrative warrants whenever property owners deny them access. The Institute for Justice (IJ), a national public interest law firm, sent a letter to the City Council asking it to reject the ordinance as it would violate the Wyoming Constitution.

Under the proposed ordinance, city officials could obtain warrants to force their way into Cheyenne homes and businesses. But unlike standard warrants, where a government official must justify the warrant with a specific reasons for the search, these are issued without any evidence or suspicion that a house or business contains evidence of crime or a code violation.

The Wyoming Constitution requires more: a warrant may issue only upon probable cause supported by a sworn affidavit setting out concrete facts showing that a particular property contains an existing code violation.

“One of the most precious guarantees in the Wyoming Constitution is the requirement of probable cause for warrants,” said IJ Attorney Daniel Woislaw. “Cheyenne’s proposed ordinance would allow government inspectors to enter private homes for any reason, or no reason at all. We’ve seen the types of abuses that can happen when we give governments this power and it’s not pretty.”

So-called “administrative” warrants are permission slips signed by judges that allow government officers to search private homes or businesses without first proving that there is reason to believe the property contains evidence of a crime or some other legal violation. Wyoming’s state constitution requires a fact-based, written “affidavit” before a judge can issue a warrant. This means that before Wyoming officials get a search warrant, they have to submit a written statement to a judge showing actual reason to believe there’s a violation of law at a home or business. Cheyenne’s proposed ordinance would sidestep this important constitutional requirement.

Experience elsewhere shows the importance of that requirement, as inspection schemes lacking individualized probable cause have led to serious invasions of privacy. In a decade-long case litigated by IJ, city officials in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, used administrative warrants to conduct intrusive, room-by-room searches of occupied homes without evidence of specific violations—entering bedrooms, opening private containers, and observing sensitive personal and medical information, sometimes in the presence of children. The privacy violations were profound, including the documentation of intimate adult items kept in private bedrooms, and inspections were conducted with police involvement, leading to the tracking of renter information and even arrests. In December 2025, a court ruled that Pottstown’s ordinance was unconstitutional.

Through its Project on the Fourth Amendment, IJ works to protect America’s foundational right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Zion, Illinois, amended its rental inspection law following a lawsuit by IJ, and IJ recently weighed in as friend-of-the-court before the Ohio Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of a similar ordinance in North Canton, Ohio.