This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘My husband and I are private people, and we don’t want to be forced to let people we don’t know into our home to go searching around, when we’ve done nothing wrong.’
A new decision from the Iowa state Supreme Court now threatens the privacy rights of everyone in the state, according to a report from the Institute for Justice.
The fight was over random inspections demanded by city officials in Orange City, Iowa, of any – and all – rental properties.
The state’s high court decided to overturn a lower court’s decision that the city’s mandatory rental inspection law violated the state constitution.
“The law was challenged by a coalition of tenants and their landlords, represented by the Institute for Justice,” said the institute, explaining that the decision didn’t even address the constitutional problem in the case.
The court simply claimed, “[b]ecause there are situations where the City’s inspection requirement can operate constitutionally, the citizens’ facial challenge fails.”
The court also claimed the law does not require the inspections to be conducted by a government official and speculated that the government can constitutionally force someone to open their doors for inspection by a “certified third-party” inspector.
“Today’s ruling is incredibly disappointing and threatens the privacy rights of all Iowans,” said IJ lawyer John Wrench. “”Orange City insists that it has the authority to forcefully search the homes of our clients and all renters using warrants that are not based on any evidence of a violation. By refusing to address the constitutionality of those searches, today’s decision leaves Iowans without a clear path for challenging the government’s forceful entry of their homes.”
The town officials decided that they can use an “administrative warrant” to simply walk into any rental unit and inspect it, and all of its contents.
“Unlike a traditional warrant, which requires probable cause that a violation has occurred, administrative warrants require no proof that any violations or wrongdoing have occurred,” the IJ said.
“My husband and I are private people, and we don’t want to be forced to let people we don’t know into our home to go searching around, when we’ve done nothing wrong,” said Erika Nordyke, one of the tenants in the lawsuit.
A lower court had concluded the city did, in fact, violate the state constitution.
IJ lawyer Rob Peccolo explained earlier, “An administrative warrant is not the same as a traditional search warrant – the government doesn’t need to suspect you of any wrongdoing to get an administrative warrant and enter your home without your permission. The home can contain the most private information about a person or family, including their religious, political and medical information. Iowans do not want government officials going through their homes for no good reason.”
The IJ explained, “Inspectors can view everything about a tenant once they are inside the home: religious, political, and medical information, as well as information about tenants’ children, families, and romantic lives. Inspectors can also learn about a tenant’s socio-economic status – something tenants can find embarrassing and even humiliating. Most dangerous of all, inspectors can also report suspected criminal activity to the police, meaning rental inspections can lead to arrest.”
The post ‘Most Dangerous’: State Supreme Court Decision ‘Threatens the Privacy Rights of All’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
TruthPuke LLC hereby clarifies that the editors, in numerous instances, are not accountable for the origination of news posts. Furthermore, the expression of opinions within exclusives authored by TruthPuke Editors does not automatically reflect the viewpoints or convictions held by TruthPuke Management.
