MN Supreme Court Gives Cities Right to Inspect

Written By:Paul Birnberg  and Mike Vraa

Golden Valley, like many MN cities, wants to have the power to inspect every rental unit in the city on a regular basis (annually or once every two or three years). Why? The inspector wants to make sure every landlord is keeping up on repairs. Without inspections some repairs don’t get done for several reasons:

1. Hoping to save money, some landlords avoid doing repairs.

1. Some repairs are hard to see unless an expert is looking; like faulty wiring that might burn down the building.

1. Some tenants are scared to call an inspector. Perhaps they are worried about retaliation from the landlord or have immigration concerns.

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision on whether cities could regularly inspect rental properties. Who fought against the city? A landlord and a tenant, who argued that this was an invasion of their privacy.

When may the inspector enter? What notice does the tenant get?

Here is how the court ruled:

1. If the unit is rented, the landlord has no right to keep the city inspector out. The apartment is the tenant’s home, not the landlord’s, so it is up to the tenant to decide whether the inspector can enter.

1. The tenant can allow the inspector to come in, which is what usually happens because the tenant wants to make sure the place is safe.
2. If the tenant does not agree to let the inspector in, the inspector must get a search warrant to enter. This is based on a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case called Camara.
3. The main issue in the recent case was what evidence the inspector must show the judge to get a search warrant. In the Camara case, the Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment the inspector did not need to show that there was “probable cause” in the specific to enter. All the inspector had to show was that apartments in the area that hadn’t been inspected in a certain number of years.

This might seem like a minor point but it isn’t. Unless the tenant reports a problem, it is rare for an inspector to have any evidence of a problem. So, with some tenants being scared to report and others ignorant of problems (recall the faulty wire about to burn down the building), many apartments would not be inspected under criminal-case probable cause. The Minnesota Supreme Court had to decide whether under the State Constitution, the Camara rule applied. The court decided that it did apply.

Based on this ruling, Minnesota city rental inspectors may continue to get search warrants based on Camara-type cause. They may continue to inspect every rental unit in the city on a regular basis without having proof before entry of a problem in that particular unit.

1. Another issue was whether the tenant has any rights to contest the warrant’s being issued or how it will be applied.

Even the tenant who is generally okay with inspections may not want an unannounced visit. They might have personal items out they don’t want anyone to see. Under Camara, with a warrant in hand, the inspector can barge in virtually anytime in the daytime, and get the warrant “ex parte”-speaking to the judge without the tenant present.

The court ruled that under the Minnesota constitution, the inspector must give the tenant notice of when they will be applying for the warrant and the tenant may come to court and ask for limits to the warrant. The tenant probably won’t be able to prevent the warrant being issued, but probably will get a chance to control the time of entry and what the inspector looks at (dresser drawers should be off-limits). This will give the tenant a chance to hide or remove compromising items and to be home during the entry if that is a concern..

Practically speaking, in almost all cases the inspector and the city attorney will simply make a deal with the tenant on these topics. In our experience, inspectors aren’t snoops or anti-drug police and just want buildings to be safe. Indeed, if the tenant conditions their consent to enter upon an agreed time convenient to the tenant, the inspector is very likely to agree since this avoids the need for a warrant.

HOME Line joined Golden Valley and other groups in the case. HOME Line submitted a brief in the case arguing that these inspections should be allowed.

On issue #5, HOME Line asked the court to do pretty much what it decided. The City had not said much on that issue since its primary concern was the right to inspect and the right of tenants to safe homes, caring less one way or another about tenants’ privacy.

Politically speaking, the main opponents in the case were landlords and their allies, hoping to use the Minnesota constitution to avoid repairs. The main defendant, Jason Wiebesick, had filed an amicus brief in 2013 in a related case, also trying to limit inspections under the guise of search & seizure law.

Our participation helped the court realize what really was at stake for tenants rather than what Wiebesick and his allies claimed was at stake. With this case in hand, inspectors and tenant-rights groups can breath easier, knowing that all rental units will get proper inspections.

HOME Line was pleased to work on this case with the City of Golden Valley, the League of Minnesota Cities and InquilinXs UnidXs por Justicia .