Administrative search warrants are an important tool to city officials trying to enforce the lead-based paint ordinance and looking for other safety concerns in rental properties, says Tom Richards, the city’s corporation counsel. PHOTO BY MATT DETURCK
The City of Rochester is facing a legal fight over its administrative search warrants. An attorney representing a tenant who refused to permit city inspectors into her home filed papers with the New York State Supreme Court on Friday, August 28.
The warrants are important tools to city officials trying to enforce the lead-based paint ordinance and looking for other safety concerns in rental properties, says Tom Richards, the city's corporation counsel.
"In order for a property owner to receive a Certificate of Occupancy for a rental property, the law requires that we have to inspect that property," Richards says.
David Ahl, a member of the New York State Coalition of Property Owners and Businesses, says that while he is not against warrants being issued when there is probable cause, he is against warrants that are an excuse for a hunting spree of possible violations of any law.
"You've got to tell me what you're looking for," Ahl says.
Ahl predicts that the administrative search warrants will go the way of the curfew, which was rejected by the courts.
Richards disagrees.
The question with the curfew, he says, was whether it was legal in the first place. There's no question about the legality of the lead-paint ordinance, Richards says, and the city has to be able to inspect properties in order to enforce that ordinance.
The city has a backlog of lead-paint inspections because of the legal challenge, Richards says.
Comments for "THE COURTS: City's search warrants under fire " (8)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
Mike Say said on Sep. 09, 2009 at 12:31pm
You only need to ask yourself 3 Questions:
Question 1: Does the City of Rochester's "right to inspect" trump a U.S. citizen's "constitutional right to privacy"? I say NO. In a country of Laws we should follow the law of the land, even in Rochester. Now if we were in Germany, the City of Rochester would be justified in acting like the Gestapo. There would be no expectation of privacy for individuals. The City would not have to cite lead paint, leaky faucet, or any other made-up excuse to go into a person's home. The law in every other City says the Government needs criminal "probable cause" to eradicate the right to privacy. The City of Rochester knows this, yet they continue to seek entering into innocent citizens homes for whatever they deem necessary. If they spent more time using the laws for what they were intended to do, maybe the City could catch a real criminal. The backlog Mr. Richards speakes about is the results of bad City law, regardless of how good the intentions were!
Question 2: Do we realy want "LOSS OF FREEDOMS" for innocent people in Rochester? Again I say NO. If the City is allowed to bully innocent people, then all Rochester residence loose!
Question 3: What will you do when they come for you? You will have no privacy in your own home, and this means NO FREEDOM!
The city of rochester should not be given the right to harrass innocent people! Everyone should stand up and say no.
MAT said on Sep. 09, 2009 at 7:16pm
If property owners would keep their properties in good condition, there would be no issue. The City is right to hold property owners accountable for their negligence. Perhaps the City should consider changing their protocol to be more flexible to tenants, but it would be a mistake to dismantle this program. There are too many bad landlords in this town; the City's actions will weed out many of them.
Paul said on Sep. 11, 2009 at 8:42am
The city of Rochester goes way out of there way to create an environment where nobody in there right mind would be a potential buyer. Why don't they just leave good law abiding citizens alone and go after the real criminals. There seems to be plenty of them around.......
Mary said on Sep. 11, 2009 at 8:56am
Right on Mike. Mat, property owners do keep their properties in good condition. Better than city council ever thought. 85-90% of all dust wipes pass. Who would of thought? In the early 1990's there were 5000 kids that had elevated lead levels. Today less than 300. This is not the success of the lead law it is the success of Monroe County teaching housing providers. Mat, know your facts before you trash the investors that support 60% of your tax base. Without us many more programs would have to be discontinued. America stands for freedom. I cannot cite one community that uses search warrants to get into apartments. Other communities do not have C of O's either. They also don't have the vacant houses that we have either.
Tenants have the right to say "NO" you cannot come into my home. Also, if the lead law is so great it should be city wide and protect all children. Right now the city only has certain areas that are under the lead ordinance, even if no children live there. In other areas the lead law is not enforced where children live. Does this make sense?
There are more good landlords than bad in this town and the market will take care of the bad ones.
Drew said on Sep. 11, 2009 at 12:02pm
The City claims they need to forcibly search through people's homes for "safety".
But there are THOUSANDS of UNSAFE City homes that the City chooses to ignore. Why? Because those are homes owned by the occupant and it would be "politically difficult" to search the homes of more affluent voters with the resources to fight back. And it's no small coincidence that 99% of City Council and the Mayor's Office are homeowners, so they are unaffected by the City's forced searches.
DID YOU KNOW? That the last 6 deaths in City homes related to unsafe conditions were in OWNER-OCCUPIED homes that the City chooses not to search?
THOUSANDS of homes with serious safety problems and the City REFUSES to inspect? Is it really about safety? Obviously not.
Is the City using its code programs to keep a closer eye on "those people"? You know, wink, wink, "those people", the "po' folks" who would be exempt from City searches if they could afford their own house. City Council & the Mayor's gang want "those people" searched....but DON'T search US!
How many in City Council and the Mayor's Office have volunteered to have THEIR homes searched by inspectors? After all, if it's really about "safety", shouldn't Tom Richards & Bob Duffy lead the way by example?
NONE of them have allowed inspectors to search their houses! But I guarantee you that inspectors would find HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of violations in the homes of Council & the Mayor's Office.
So, it's NOT about "safety". It's about keeping "those people" in line...
Harry Davis said on Sep. 11, 2009 at 2:31pm
This February, the City Council passed Local Law 3, which allows City officials to obtain "inspection warrants" against YOUR house simply because you are not related to your landlord. Local law 3 allows the City to throw you in jail for "contempt of court" if you don't open the door to City inspectors with an "inspection warrant." If you don't think the City should be able to throw you in jail for asserting your constitutional right to privacy, don't vote for the City Council incumbents.
Kathryn said on Sep. 12, 2009 at 1:29pm
Drew: It's about keeping "slumlords" in line. "Those people" that you refer to deserve to live in houses without sewer backup in their basement and rats in the attic (as was found recently on my street when the City inspected a slumlord's property on my street.)
Mike said on Sep. 16, 2009 at 11:12pm
First house we need to inspect are the C/O inspector's houses, their house will never pass if they use the same inspection criteria they use on rental properties (Currently C/O inspection are not required for single family owner occupied dwelling). The better you maintain your property more picky inspector become, this is how they justify their own job. I have never walked out of a C/O inspection without at least one minor citation.
With regard to lead paint test, a visual inspection for peeling/chipping paint should be sufficient but no City insists your property also need to pass a lead wipe test. They are so concerned about outside lead dust that may gets blow in will also contaminate your dwelling. (I believe a lead wipe test is really a cleanness test). No one will pass the lead wipe test if the property is not thoroughly cleaned, vacuumed or moped couple days before the wipe test. To ensure my rental property will pass this lead wipe test, I will need to thoroughly clean all window sills (even though there are no peeling paint), mop tenant floor at least two times the day before (not one week before) the lead wipe test are performed otherwise it will not pass. I believe I am becoming my tenant’s cleaning maid which should always be their duty otherwise it will not pass my lead wipe test.
If City really care about the health and safety of all its citizens, C/O should not only be required on rental property it should also be required across all properties. After all lead do not discriminate between owner occupied or non-owner occupied dwellings.
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.