The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Americans Must Now Spend Thousands More Each Year If They Want to Enjoy the Same Lifestyle They Had in January 2021
  • Wilton Police Release Statement on Raid of Massive Illegal Marijuana Cultivation Facility
  • Raid on Illegal Chinese Marijuana Operation in Western Maine Seizes Illicit Drugs Worth $1M+
  • Two Arrested After Trespassing, Setting Up Tent in Basement of Westbrook Home
  • Paul LePage to Host Celebration of Life Fundraiser for Families of Lewiston Shooting Victims
  • Property Taxes Emerge As Focal Point for Legislature Going Into Next Year
  • Hunter Biden Agrees to Testify Before House Oversight Committee, but Only if it’s Public
  • Two Adults Found Dead at Home in Searsmont
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Login
Wednesday, November 29
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
The Maine Wire
Home » News » Sanford City Council needs a Constitutional Reality Check
Commentary

Sanford City Council needs a Constitutional Reality Check

Nick MurrayBy Nick MurrayJune 22, 2017Updated:June 27, 2017No Comments5 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

On Tuesday, the Sanford City Council met to take public comment on a new amendment to their Building Construction Ordinance, among other subjects. This portion was surely the most contentious issue of the evening. It began with a presentation by Ian Houseal, the newly-hired Community Development Director. For years, Mr. Houseal has made a career of shepherding new housing ordinances through Maine city governments under the guise of “safer, fairer housing.” Before Sanford brought him on, he worked for the city of Portland for six years, resulting in the city’s new rental housing licensing program that began last year. Before that he was Special Assistant to the Lewiston City Administrator in a similar capacity. As was also proposed in these communities, the Sanford proposal would require licensing of all rental properties and vacant buildings.

Mr. Houseal’s presentation (beginning at 56:00) was heavy on rhetoric and light on substance, and what little substance he brought was woefully misrepresented. He claimed that no new housing codes would be enacted, merely that the existing codes would be enforced. In a decidedly Orwellian turn, he went on to say that city officials would go “block-by-block” and “building-by-building” to administer these “proactive inspections,” seeking “full compliance.”

Admittedly, this political observer gets a bit squeamish when government officials coin terms like “proactive inspections.” It translates, past the lofty rhetoric, to a deference to government agencies instead of individual rights and due process.

In addition, Mr. Houseal was shockingly vague on enforcement procedure. Even when pressed, he did not answer the question of what occurs when code enforcement officers need to gain access to determine code compliance of a building but do not have the property owner’s consent to do so. He instead chose to speak on the procedure town officials use to gain consent, claiming that these inspections are merely “routine” and the town’s willingness to work with the property owners’ schedules was sufficient to gain access. He barely acknowledged the scenario in which a landlord does not consent to an initial inspection.

The text of the proposed ordinance states that anyone failing to apply for a rental license is on the hook for civil penalties including fines and an “administrative warrant” to conduct the inspection. Curiously, the ordinance claims this authority is derived from M.R.S.A. Title 30-A § 4452 which gives municipal officials, “with the consent of the owner, occupant or agent,” authority to inspect housing property for code violations. Maine State law does not allow housing inspections to be carried out without proper consent, as the U.S. Constitution mandates, and as federal district courts and the Supreme Court have maintained.

In 2015, Ohio’s 1851 Society represented property owners under similar circumstances for which Judge Susan Dlott of the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio ruled:

“[T]he Court finds that the Portsmouth [Rental Dwelling Code] violates the Fourth Amendment insofar as it authorizes warrantless administrative inspections. It is undisputed that the [Rental Dwelling Code] affords no warrant procedure or other mechanism for pre-compliance review . . . the owners and/or tenants of rental properties in Portsmouth are thus faced with the choice of consenting to the warrantless inspection or facing criminal charges, a result the Supreme Court has expressly disavowed under the Fourth Amendment.”

According to the Fourth Amendment, no unreasonable search and seizure shall be granted without obtaining a warrant based on probable cause. Probable cause refers to a state entity’s reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will soon be committed. Barring the owner’s consent, government officials cannot search property without a warrant. The Sanford City Council will have to rely on landlords and tenants falling in line and allowing code enforcers to search and inspect their property.

Possibly the most offensive aspect of this program–despite the apparent ignorance of the Fourth Amendment–is the expectation that, during these inspections, code enforcement officers will expect to see the entire building This means that landlords who reside in a building which they partially rent may have their own living space searched without a warrant as well.

Even the Supreme Court has held, as in Payton v New York (1980), that “the sanctity of the home . . . has been embedded in our traditions since the founding of the Republic” and further, in Camara v San Francisco (1967), that “[i]t is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.” In Camara, the Court maintained that even in noncriminal cases (such as the enforcement of building codes) the Fourth Amendment still applies.

This makes one wonder how the town got along since its founding in 1768 without this housing scheme in place. Up until now, city officials had requested to search property if a complaint had been filed by a tenant or neighbor alleging some sort of criminal conduct or code infringement associated with the property. Even today, tenants have the quickest, easiest route to issuing a complaint about their living situation–complete with photo or video evidence–than ever before.

For other concerned citizens worried about this potential overreach of government power, the author urges his readers to contact Sanford Mayor Tom Cote and the City Council before they vote on this ordinance at their next meeting on July 18, especially if Sanford residents. Serve them a hearty reality check on private property rights. If we do not stand up to this overreach, they will surely take more of our rights wherever and whenever they can.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Commentary Featured fourth amendment Maine Property Rights sanford maine
Previous ArticleHouse Democrats’ vote allows out-of-state welfare spending to continue
Next Article Expanding Medicaid means more taxes for working Mainers
Nick Murray
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Nick Murray, a resident of Poland, currently serves as Director of Policy with Maine Policy Institute, developing MPI's policy research, analysis, and strategic advocacy priorities. He is the author of numerous articles and publications such as the 50-State Emergency Powers Scorecard, Long-Term Growth vs. Short-Term Gimmicks: Maine's Economy and Gov. Mills' Second Biennial Budget, Sticker Shock: Maine's Burdensome Vehicle Inspection Mandate, and COVID Catastrophe: the Consequences of Societal Shutdowns.

Related Posts

Maine Leads the Nation in a Terrible Category

November 21, 2023

Searsport Offshore Wind Port Meeting Scheduled for Nov. 18

November 14, 2023

The Federal Debt Now Costs $1 Trillion Annually

November 10, 2023

Leave A Reply

Recent News

Americans Must Now Spend Thousands More Each Year If They Want to Enjoy the Same Lifestyle They Had in January 2021

November 29, 2023

Wilton Police Release Statement on Raid of Massive Illegal Marijuana Cultivation Facility

November 29, 2023

Raid on Illegal Chinese Marijuana Operation in Western Maine Seizes Illicit Drugs Worth $1M+

November 28, 2023

Two Arrested After Trespassing, Setting Up Tent in Basement of Westbrook Home

November 28, 2023

Paul LePage to Host Celebration of Life Fundraiser for Families of Lewiston Shooting Victims

November 28, 2023
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login below or Register Now.

Lost password?

Register Now!

Already registered? Login.

A password will be e-mailed to you.