Challenging suspicion-less rental house inspections
CASE UPDATE
Neither the Minnesota Supreme Court, nor the Court of Appeal, upheld that rental houses should require a warrant, based on individualized probable cause. ACLU - MN still asserts that individualized probable cause is needed in order to acquire an administrative search warrant for a rental-housing inspection.
CASE BACKGROUND
The ACLU of Minnesota believes that it is inappropriate to victimize housing tenants by subjecting them to unreasonable searches all in the name of protecting their rights. This case argues that this Court should require individualized probable cause for rental housing inspection warrants because the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco does not adequately protect Minnesota citizens' basic rights and liberties.
It is well settled that the expectation of privacy in one’s home is based on societal expectations that have deep roots in the history of the 4th amendment. As such, the ACLU of Minnesota urges the court to hold that housing inspections should only take place when based on voluntary consent or a warrant that is based on individualized probable cause to believe that code violations will be found on a particular property.
The ACLU-MN urges the Minnesota Court of Appeal to uphold the District Court decision that rental houses should require a warrant, based on individualized probable cause to believe that code violations will be found in the property to be inspected.
