> > This is actually a somewhat interesting issue among some landlords, > tenants, and the inspections division. There is nothing in the law that > allows a property owner to let an inspector into a tenant's unit absent > an administrative search warrant That is, the general thought among > folks in inspections (and among constitutional scholars) is that a > landlord cannot constitutionally consent to let an inspector into a > tenant's apartment on behalf of a tenant, and for this reason inspectors > have been using "consent" cards that the tenants use to provide such > consent. Those cards have generally been sent directly to the tenants, > who fill them out and return them (or, if the need for an inspection is > a result of the tenant's complaint, the tenant signs a consent form when > the inspector comes out for the inspection).
Mr. Luce is wrong. Common law, case law, and Con law all allow the landlord EXTENSIVE inspection rights, she/he must give "reasonable notice". In those two little words is the crux of so many disputes. The landlord can let in the inspector any time she choses. As long as reasonable notice is given. The landlord can deny access, then as Mr. Luce points out, remedy by warrant can be obtained. Should inspections wish access, wave the blue card, and say "open the door", and this was an unscheduled inspection....I would have the city take all liability for loss or damage. Translation= Resident must meet inspector. Blue cards don't cut it. > > There is talk that the ordinance may be amended (it could have already > been amended, I'm just not up to speed but I'll find out) to do the > following: the city sends a notice to the landlord for the need for an > inspection, and the owner/landlord must respond to the notice by > scheduling an inspection. Once scheduled, the owner/landlord is > responsible for informing the tenant of the inspection date, requesting > permission from the tenants, and providing the "consent" cards to the > tenants. The landlord is then responsible for obtaining the tenant's > signatures on the consent cards and returning them to inspections. This is where the city has no idea what kind of headache they are creating for themselves and all the decent landlords. 1. By having those blue cards go out. They create in the mind of the resident, that no inspection can occur with out their consent. Thus creating instant disbelief that landlord can access when reasonable notice is given. Translation=City policy is tossing aside 1000 years of and current common, case, con-law. An aside for the neighborhood landlord police, How do you expect the landlords to be aware or in control of the events of the building with these kinds of re-strictions. > > In most cases consent is not an issue. I have, however, been involved > in one situation where a landlord intercepted and forged tenants' > signatures on cards to NOT let an inspection occur, and I'm generally > aware of other similar situations. Then prosecute the perp for mail fraud. Don't start a whole new Department of Blue Card Compliance. The old way worked best. Inspections notifies landlord, landlord notifies resident. In case of complaint driven inspections, resident meets inspector. Or we can make affordable housing even harder to provide. Craig Miller Affordable housing provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
