Rental Registration - Dearmore v. City of Garland

DMN 1/30/2012

The rental registration program Richardson recently passed has not set well with me for primarily one reason: The owner of a rental property must, within 30 days after a tenant moves in, allow city inspectors access to inspect a property.

While I think that if any inspection at all needs to done, it should be when the single family home is vacant and before any tenant moves in.  After all, the 4^th Amendment to the constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” But the US Supreme court seems to disagree with my opinion.”

During the discussion on rental home registration several weeks ago,  Mark “Monday Madness" Solomon boomed out his opinion that a rental homes are no residential properties, they are in fact a commercial enterprise that make money. I am quite sure that he would be happy to know that the Courts would agree.  “Although Dearmore does not reside at his rental properties, the court views his ownership interest in his rental property as that of the owner of a commercial business, as it is used for commercial purposes. As such, he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his rental property.”

So, as a rental home is consider a commercial property, perhaps that is why the city decided not to have inspections prior to a tenant renting a house. A city cannot coerce the inspection of a vacant residential property without probable cause. “The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property. The businessman, too, has that right placed in jeopardy if the decision to enter and inspect for violation of regulatory laws can be made and enforced by the inspector in the field without official authority evidenced by a warrant.”

When is comes to probable cause, refusal to comply with inspection request by city officials does not create probably cause enough to obtain a warrant. “No search warrant shall be obtained without probable cause to believe that a fire or health hazard or violation or unsafe building condition is present on the premises sought to be inspected. A search warrant is not authorized based solely upon the failure of an owner to obtain a permit under this section.” There must be some positive proof that there exists a condition in violation of city codes, not just suspicions.

As for the renter’s rights, the rental home he leases is his home. Against the 4^th amendment protect his right to privacy just as it would any business or resident. You residence is your residence whether rented or own.

The City of Richardson, if it intends to continue enforcing it’s ordinances will likely end up in the same place as Garland, the losing side of a court case.

So what can you do if you like the current rental registration program? Nothing.

But, suppose you don't like it and would like to do something about it. There is one thing you might want to do, call Metrotex and speak to Romeo Arrieta, telling him that they think the ordinance is unfair, unconstitutional, or what ever you think. His number is (972) 467-0819 

Dearmore v. City of Garland

RichardsonRentalHomeInspections.pdf

-