Dear John,

I have big news to share in one of IJ’s longest-running cases. This week, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania unanimously ruled that the borough of Pottstown’s ordinance permitting officials to search rental homes without a warrant or consent from renters or landlords is unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution. This landmark decision comes after almost a decade of dedication from Pottstown residents Dottie and Omar Rivera, their landlord, and IJ.

Please add your support for IJ today. 

It may seem ridiculous to say that government agents can forcibly enter your home without a warrant or suspicion of any violation. Since the 1960s, though, the U.S. Supreme Court has said they can do exactly that, so long as you rent your home rather than owning it. IJ thinks that’s wrong, and we thought higher-level state courts might agree with us if we could get the issue in front of them.  

This pathbreaking decision by a state appellate court is the first case to reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called “administrative warrant” doctrine and put renters’ constitutional rights on the same level as owners.  

“I’m thrilled that renters now have the same rights to be secure in their homes as homeowners in Pottstown do.”

- IJ client Dottie Rivera, who rents this festive home

Pottstown’s rental inspection ordinance forced landlords and tenants to open their doors regularly for an inspection of their entire home, including bedrooms and bathrooms, in search of code violations. Pottstown, like many towns in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, didn’t care if both tenants and landlords objected to these intrusive searches. 

This week’s decision held that even if federal courts have ruled that the U.S. Constitution allows such inspections, the Pennsylvania Constitution does not. Now, to conduct an inspection, Pottstown must either obtain a real warrant based on probable cause that a code violation or other issue has occurred or receive consent from the tenant or landlord. 

This was a particularly long and hard fight, filled with endless obstruction from the government. We had to physically stake out an official’s parking spot to serve him papers. We had to get a court order so a forensic expert could dig through the town’s hard drives (after Pottstown defied an order to provide documents). We had to (successfully) appeal a ruling that we could only get information about our three plaintiffs and nothing about how the inspection program actually worked. 

It’s been a wild and often frustrating ride, but it was worth it for a win that will protect renters across Pennsylvania and serve as a template for other state courts to pursue an independent path under their own state constitutions. 

IJ is proud to be the nation’s leading defender of property rights—and to focus that work on the needs of everyday Americans who can’t afford to fight city hall on their own. We’ve protected the property rights of renters, small businesses, homeless shelters, working-class homeowners targeted for replacement with wealthier people through eminent domain abuse, people whose money was seized through civil forfeiture, and so much more.  

Please add your support for IJ today, and stand with us in the fight.

Scott 

Scott G. Bullock
President and Chief Counsel
Institute for Justice