Arbitrary Rental Inspections Violate Search and Seizure Protections, Says Iowa Court
Warrantless home invasions are intrusive and dangerous for those on the receiving end.

Being a renter instead of a homeowner shouldn't deprive you of constitutional protections for your rights, but a lot of local governments act as if that's the case. In the guise of protecting public health, many communities require tenants and landlords to submit to regular inspections of rental properties without probable cause. They do so despite objections raised by owners and residents. But now an Iowa court has joined others in ruling that such invasions of privacy and private property are unconstitutional.
You are reading The Rattler, a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, sign up for The Rattler. It's free. Unsubscribe any time.
Legally Mandated Home Invasions
The conflict began in 2021 with the passage of an ordinance by Orange City, Iowa, requiring residential rental units be registered with the city for a fee and inspected every five years. No evidence of a code violation or probable cause of any sort was required prior to an inspection, and the ordinance specified: "If entry is refused, the inspector shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry including, but not limited to, obtaining an administrative search warrant to search the rental unit."
Unsurprisingly, landlords and tenants alike found the prospect of regular government searches of private property objectionable. Such searches are inherently intrusive and legally perilous since inspectors might encounter violations of law, real or invented, during a home invasion. That's why warrants based on probable cause and not just administrative rubber stamps are required for searches by the Fourth Amendment as well as by state constitutions.
"Bryan Singer and Erika Nordyke want only people they know and trust wandering around inside their Orange City home. One of the city's housing inspectors, Singer says, doesn't qualify," the Des Moines Register reported in June 2021. "Now, they're challenging the city's inspection regime in court. Two landlords and three tenants, including Singer and Nordyke, are suing the city in Sioux County district court, arguing that such searches violate their rights under the Iowa Constitution."
In ruling on the legal challenge to Orange City's inspection program, Iowa District Judge Jeffrey A. Neary focused on the sham nature of the administrative warrants relied upon by city inspectors. "The ordinance does not set forth any requirements, details, standard or level of proof, nor process or procedure for obtaining the administrative search warrant," he wrote. The judge added that tenants "receive no prior notice of the search warrant application process" and so have no opportunity to contest the application. He pointed out that the administrative warrants are open-ended in scope, that nothing prevents police from accompanying inspectors, and that "evidence of illegal activity in the rental property observed by the inspector is reported to the City Attorney."
Overall, the inspection program is a search-and-seizure nightmare. It completely bypasses protections in the federal Fourth Amendment and in the Iowa Constitution's similar Article I, Section 8, on which the plaintiffs relied.
"The Court finds here that there needs to be more safeguards or protective measures put in place as there are currently none in place in Iowa for the district court to use when considering a request or an application for an administrative search warrant," the judge wrote in finding for the plaintiffs. He permanently enjoined the city from seeking administrative warrants to conduct inspections.
"Today's decision striking down Orange City's inspection ordinance is a major win for the basic privacy rights of all renters in Orange City," commented attorney John Wrench of the Institute for Justice, which supported the plaintiffs. "You don't lose your constitutional rights because you rent your home, instead of owning your home."
A Local Victory with Big Implications
The ruling has repercussions well beyond one community since the Iowa League of Cities touts rental registration and inspection programs across the state. All such programs are now constitutionally suspect unless they can demonstrate they provide protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Beyond Iowa, the National Apartment Association, a trade group, objects that "rental housing inspection laws place an unnecessary financial hardship on owners, infringe on personal privacy rights, and single out apartment housing while excluding other property types." Those inspection laws may run afoul of protections in various state constitutions such as those relied upon by the Orange City plaintiffs, as well as the guarantees in the federal Fourth Amendment.
"As the Supreme Court has noted, the 'physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed,'" U.S. District Court Judge Susan J. Dlott noted in 2015 in a case challenging Portsmouth, Ohio's Rental Dwelling Code authorizing mandatory inspections of rental units. "The Court finds that the Portsmouth RDC violates the Fourth Amendment insofar as it authorizes warrantless administrative inspections."
Earlier this year, the city of Zion, Illinois, agreed to drop fines assessed against landlords and tenants who refused access to inspectors. The city had already amended its ordinances to respect probable cause requirements in the course of pursuing rental inspections.
Harassment By Inspection
The Zion case raises an important issue with regulation of rental properties: While justified on public health grounds, code enforcement and inspections are often used to squeeze out tenants and landlords deemed "undesirable" by local officials.
"Zion Mayor Al Hill acknowledged past enforcement problems with the ordinance and said the city has since changed its response to potential nuisance properties," the Chicago Tribune reported in 2017 of the city's rental housing policies. "He said the city sends fewer letters and no longer enforces the ordinance against domestic violence callers or tenants who are crime victims."
Earlier, Hill had told city council members that Zion had "too many rental units" as they discussed inspection fees.
Clearly, the ability to conduct intrusive inspections of rental units without probable cause and to simultaneously look for violations of the law with which to charge unwanted residents are powerful weapons for officials to use against people they don't like. That's especially troubling if the people they don't like are landlords and tenants.
Here is a reminder that constitutional protections for our rights aren't just annoying hoops we make government employees jump through; they're defenses against sometimes malicious officials who abuse the powers at their disposal. Orange City rental inspectors will now have to demonstrate some sort of probable cause before forcing themselves into people's homes. That reduces the harm they can do, no matter what their motivation.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“That's why warrants based on probable cause and not just administrative rubber stamps are required for searches by the Fourth Amendment as well as by state constitutions.”
Unless you have a judge who just rubber stamps warrants. There seem to be a lot of those, especially in drug cases.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Cops can keep on making up their probable cause claims, pointing at unverifiable "anonymous tips".
While justified on public health grounds, code enforcement and inspections are often used to squeeze out tenants and landlords deemed "undesirable" by local officials.
It appears they justify a lot of government actions on "public health" grounds.
Just say "public health concerns" and the entire BOR goes right out the window.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Very powerful quote. May I ask where it's from?
Solzhenitsyn. Gulag Archipelago, I believe.
When I was a renter around 2000 the fire department came and said they had to come in and inspect the place. Not knowing any better I let them in. They checked the place out, looked at the exits and exit doors, and then left. Shortly after the landlord got a letter saying the wooden doors needed to be replaced with hollow metal doors.
This is the case in my municipality. Because we rent, we get inspected by the city annually to renew our occupancy permit.
But, my next door neighbors, who have lived in their building as long as I have, only needed the initial inspection before they moved in at the time of purchase.
" . . . for a fee . . . "
" . . . as they discussed inspection fees."
And there you have it.
But what small percentage have read any of Solzhenitsyn's books, or even his comment as quoted above? And what even smaller percentage really understands the warnings contained therein? And of those few, what fraction has the spine to act, while they still have the means?
public. health.
If public health hasn't been revealed to be an oxymoron by now, I don't think people are ever going to get it.
> "If entry is refused, the inspector shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry including, but not limited to, obtaining an administrative search warrant to search the rental unit."
Yea, that's a shitty little tactic that all the bureaucrats like. "Administrative action."
You see this in the unholy union between Law Enforcement and the DMV too. Say you're arrested for suspicion of DUI. They take you downtown to administer a breathalyzer/drug test. You have a "choice" - submit to the test (which is a guaranteed guilty verdict unless you're actually sober (or sober enough)); or refuse the test, and the DMV automatically suspends your license administratively.
That's coercive and F'd up. Help the State make their case against you, or else we'll punish you some other way.
The arm of the state that claims to protect and serve the people, needs to go. In place of the standing army needs to be a well armed people and the private production of policing and security.
I always thought the Patrol Specials experiment was a good idea. Granted, pointing to Frisco as a model of law and order isn't exactly points on the board for the subject - but still, the concept is sound.
It is only a matter of time before some "Inspector" gets shot breaking into a rental. Either request permission from the tenant, get a criminal warrant or mind your own business.
Mind your own damn business should be the rallying cry for a real libertarian type party.
As far as I am concerned any AirBnb needs to be inspected just like any hotel, Period. they need to have BUSINESS licenses required which makes them a business not a residence.
the same should be true with any rental homes. A rental home could be required to have a business license, the Federal and state Governments both recognize these as LEGAL BUSINESSES.
Here we have small rental homes that are so dilapidated that they cost $500 per month to cool, have leaky roofs, have worn out receptacles and even dangerous main electrical panels. Some have even been rented with black MOLD throughout the house but hidden behind paint, still outgassing poisons.
Yes, the court is correct that invasion of a man's home is unlawful, however inspection of any business is LEGAL and done daily by fire departments and even code enforcement on a daily basis
There needs to be a balance, but their needs to be protection from SLUM LORDS as well.
The best way to protect people from slum lords is to abolish child support orders.
I'd say the best way is to remove barriers to housing construction. People aren't going to put up with shitty living conditions if they have viable alternatives.
Sorry, but oh hell no. No one's rights should change just because money changes hands. If tenants are living in poor conditions, they really should be eager to voluntarily invite inspectors.