Pennsylvania Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Lawsuit Over Pottstown’s Rental Inspection Ordinance

HARRISBURG, Pa.—On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review a nearly decade-old lawsuit, brought by Pottstown residents and their attorneys from the Institute for Justice (IJ), challenging the borough’s use of administrative warrants to conduct nonconsensual rental inspections without individualized suspicion. The court’s eventual ruling will have significant implications for tenants, property owners, and municipalities across Pennsylvania.  

“This is an important opportunity to clarify that the Pennsylvania Constitution protects the home from government searches conducted without individualized suspicion,” said IJ Attorney Rob Peccola. “We look forward to presenting this important question to the court in the coming months.”  

In 2017, Pottstown renters Dottie and Omar Rivera, and their landlord Steve Camburn, teamed up with IJ to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Pottstown’s rental inspection ordinance. The ordinance required landlords and renters to open their doors to borough inspections every two years. When occupants refused consent, the borough obtained so-called “administrative” warrants, which were not based on individualized suspicion that any code violation existed inside the home. 

After reading about the lawsuit, sisters Kathleen and Rosemarie O’Connor joined the case. The O’Connors lived in one home while their father, Thomas O’Connor, lived next door in a second home he owned. Although neither house was rented, the borough subjected the family to the same inspection demands and threats of enforcement 

“This has been a long fight, but the principle remains simple,” said Steve Camburn. “No one should lose their constitutional rights just because they rent a home.”  

Last December, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that Pottstown’s ordinance was unconstitutional to the extent it authorized administrative warrants unsupported by individualized probable cause, leading the borough to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to consider whether administrative warrants to search homes require individualized suspicion under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and how a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Camara v. Municipal Court, addressing housing inspections fits within Pennsylvania constitutional law.  

IJ is the nation’s leading defender of property rights. In addition to the Pottstown case, IJ has challenged similar rental inspection ordinances in Orange City, Iowa; Zion, Illinois; and Seattle.