Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-26-2017, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 23,076,603 times
Reputation: 10357

Advertisements

You really can't make this stuff up.

Longmont says an agency outside of Boulder County will investigate warrant-less searches | 9news.com

Longmont Housing Authority invited police to search low-income apartments without warrants | 9news.com

TL;DR: Idiot housing authority thought it would be a good idea to let local police "train" their K9's at tenant's apartments during scheduled inspections. Some tenants know their rights and now the housing authority and police department both look like complete morons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2017, 11:03 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,473,071 times
Reputation: 9074
Your Mileage May Vary. There are many local ordinances requiring periodic inspection of rental units and I've never seen a court support the "constitutional rights" of the tenants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 12:41 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,523,229 times
Reputation: 38576
That is absolutely appalling! I don't buy that she didn't know she was violating their rights. I'll bet she was required to go to all types of discrimination training, etc., as these housing authorities are funded by federal, state, county and city funds, usually. So, she should have had HUD training. What an abuse of power. She's scary. Hope she gets fired. And sued.

What a town! And the police department did this, and you know they knew they were violating their rights.

The thing is, from my recollection in a law class, they don't have the protection of having been "invited" into the units, which they could use as far as the rules of evidence. Those tenants believed they did not have a choice. That is not the same thing as an invitation. So, any charges would have been thrown out, because the search was dirty.

Good for that tenant who knew her rights. And she probably can't be kicked out, either, because most subsidized properties have a clause that you can only be kicked out for good cause. So, she was safe to complain, and knew it, I'll bet.

Man, this makes me mad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 06:40 AM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,982,916 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Your Mileage May Vary. There are many local ordinances requiring periodic inspection of rental units and I've never seen a court support the "constitutional rights" of the tenants.
The Constitution protects property rights. The landlord owns the property, and therefore has the right to inspect it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 07:21 AM
 
420 posts, read 403,599 times
Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
The Constitution protects property rights. The landlord owns the property, and therefore has the right to inspect it.
Yes. However they don't have the right to use K9's to search a property as part of a government agency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 07:53 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,473,071 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
The Constitution protects property rights. The landlord owns the property, and therefore has the right to inspect it.

I'm talking about local ordinances which require periodic city inspection of rental units. Courts have never ruled that landlords have the right to keep city inspectors out. There was a case in Kalamazoo where landlord and tenant jointly refused a city inspection and the city won in court. So much for the Fourth Amendment.

Note that homeowners would NEVER tolerate annual municipal inspection of their homes, but government can do pretty much anything with or to landlords and tenants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 07:57 AM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,982,916 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinite76 View Post
Yes. However they don't have the right to use K9's to search a property as part of a government agency.
Agreed. The landlord can come in periodically, but the police can't. They don't own the home. The home belongs to the landlord and tenant. No entering by anyone else unless there's a warrant. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 23,076,603 times
Reputation: 10357
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
The Constitution protects property rights. The landlord owns the property, and therefore has the right to inspect it.
There is a vast difference between an inspection and a search. The former is legal for the landlord, the latter is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,523,229 times
Reputation: 38576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
The Constitution protects property rights. The landlord owns the property, and therefore has the right to inspect it.
Unless, it becomes an infringement on the right to quiet enjoyment - which is not about noise, but rather the ability to use the property in peace without unreasonable interference.

Let alone the violation of the constitutional right to no search without a warrant.

I know what she was about - she hates pot and the fact that pot is now legal in CO. And she's using the fact that these properties are funded with federal money - which then makes it a breach of the lease agreement to have pot on the property, because pot is still against federal law.

In HUD funded properties, it's in the lease that you can't use pot because it's against federal law, and any HUD funded property is a federal property under federal law.

So, this is her way of getting revenge on the pot smokers in CO who live in her federally-funded buildings - to bust them for pot under the lease and evict them.

What she forgot - and that tenant actually knew - was that the federal constitution also says she can't do illegal searches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top