Ordinance Language on Inspections & the 4th Amendment

Often I see language related to entry onto and inspection of private property in city
ordinances. For example:

The authorized employees of the City, bearing proper credentials and identification,
shall be permitted to enter all properties for the purpose of inspection, observations,
measurement, sampling, and testing.

Another recent example I have found states:

Animal Control Officers shall not enter the private dwelling of an individual for
purposes of seizing animals or otherwise enforcing the provisions of this Chapter
without first obtaining a search warrant. However, an Animal Control Officer is
empowered to enter upon a property adjacent to a private dwelling for purposes of
enforcing the provisions of this Chapter.

It’s important to stress that such language is not directly contrary to law. However, in
practice, when such language is utilized by city staff to actually obtain entry to private
property - problems may occur in some fact situations.

Administrative Inspections and the Fourth Amendment

This type of inspection language may create a false sense of security for staff that all
entries onto private property are permitted by city ordinance. Of particular concern are
non-public safety staff that perform inspections less frequently than police officers. For
example, a city clerk trying to draft a warning letter for nuisances (garbage) on private
property.

It is important to remember that even “administrative searches are significant

intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” (See Camara v.
Municipal Court, 387 523 (1967). The US Constitution Fourth Amendment prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures of persons or property without a search warrant.

There are some important exceptions to this blanket rule (discussed below). Generally,
however, under the US Constitution, persons are promised a “reasonable expectation of
privacy.” (See Katz v U.S., 389 US 347, 360 (1967). City ordinance provisions cannot
and do not override these provisions.

A person’s protections under the Fourth Amendment apply as soon as a city inspector
enters what is known as the “curtilage” of the person’s property. The curtilage,
historically, is defined as the area adjacent to a person’s house where “intimate activities
associated with domestic life and the privacies of the home” take place. Similar
protections apply to businesses. (See Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 (1886);
United States v Oliver, 466 US 170, 1984; Dunn v U.S., 480 US 294 (1987).

As a result, generally, when city staff must enter private property to enforce an
ordinance or perform an inspection one of the following is needed:

1) Permission or voluntary consent from an appropriate person; OR

2) An administrative warrant issued by a court with jurisdiction.

When entering a property with consent, it is important to obtain consent from the right
person. Consent should not be obtained from minor children or guests. Consent should
be obtained from the person “in control of the property” – this could be a renter or
owner, depending on the fact circumstances. If possible, consent should be obtained in
writing.

City staff may enter onto private property without consent or a warrant only in very
limited circumstances:

1) Emergencies; and
2) To inspect heavily regulated industries (liquor dealers, firearms dealers, junkyards)

Consequences for Fourth Amendment Violations

Entering onto private property in violation of the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment

may give rise to legal claims against the city. Sometimes such claims are brought under
the Federal Civil Rights Act – also called “1983 Claims.” Civil Rights Act claims can be
costly for a city, as they are not subject to state tort law liability limits and may involve
the award of attorneys fees to prevailing parties (these can be significant and more
costly than the damages award).