Pottstown Residents File Second Lawsuit After Borough Tries to Circumvent Court Ruling with New Rental Inspection Law

POTTSTOWN, Pa.—Yesterday, Pottstown tenants Dottie and Eddy Rivera, their landlord, Steve Camburn, and their attorneys from the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed a second lawsuit against the borough, this time challenging a new rental inspection ordinance. Pottstown adopted the ordinance after the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania unanimously ruled that the borough could not obtain warrants to search occupied rental homes without individualized probable cause. The new lawsuit is the latest chapter in their nearly decade-long fight against Pottstown’s unconstitutional rental inspections. 

“The borough’s new law is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the Commonwealth Court’s decision holding that Pottstown must establish individualized probable cause before obtaining a warrant to search an occupied rental home,” said IJ Senior Attorney Jeffrey Redfern. “The government cannot get around the Constitution by outsourcing warrantless searches to third parties or coercing people into opening their doors.” 

Under Pottstown’s new ordinance, when a tenant refuses to admit a borough inspector, the landlord must obtain the tenant’s written consent to an inspection by a borough-approved third party. But the private label changes nothing: Pottstown requires the search, dictates its scope, demands the results, and retains ultimate authority over compliance. If the tenant still refuses, the borough threatens the landlord with fines and the loss of his rental license—while the tenant faces being forced from an unlicensed home. 

After the Riveras and tenants at fourteen other properties refused borough inspections, Pottstown declared the properties to be “operating illegally.” The borough gave Steve until September 30 to begin the third-party inspection process and threatened fines, placards, license revocation, injunctions, and other enforcement if he did not comply. Pottstown’s enforcement materials reveal what those threats mean: fines of at least $600 per unit each month and orders requiring tenants to leave unlicensed homes. 

Pottstown has long required—and still requires—every occupied rental home to undergo an inspection every two years as a condition of licensing. When tenants refused entry, borough officials obtained “administrative” warrants without probable cause. Those warrants authorized wall-to-wall searches, and inspectors could share what they encountered with other government officials, including law enforcement. 

That warrant regime suffered a decisive defeat last December. In a unanimous victory for renters’ privacy, the Commonwealth Court held that Pottstown could not obtain warrants to search occupied rental homes without individualized probable cause. Pottstown sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Although the Commonwealth Court’s decision is stayed during the appeal, Pottstown did not wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling. Instead, it moved forward with a new way to gain entry into renters’ homes.  

In March of this year, IJ sent a letter to the borough, explaining the legal problems with the proposed ordinance and urging officials not to pass it. Nevertheless, the borough moved forward with the new ordinance, leading to this second lawsuit.  

“For years, the borough has been trying to force me to betray my tenants’ constitutional rights, and the new threats are just the latest attempt to do so,” said Steve. “We are ready to keep fighting for as long as it takes to make sure nobody in Pottstown is forced to open their doors without a warrant based on probable cause.”  

IJ will continue representing Steve and the Riveras in the original case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The two lawsuits present distinct constitutional questions. The original state-court case asks what Pottstown must establish before obtaining an inspection warrant under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The new federal case asks whether Pottstown may bypass the warrant requirement by coercing tenants to consent to government-mandated third-party searches under threat of lost licenses, crushing fines, and displacement. Both cases defend the same fundamental principle: A rented home is still a home, and the government cannot force its way inside without voluntary consent or a valid warrant.