Washington Supreme Court Upholds Pasco’s Mandatory Rental Housing Inspection Program
September 13, 2007 - The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a mandatory city housing inspection program based on periodic examinations and certifications by landlord-selected private sector inspectors, does not violate state or federal constitutional protections from unreasonable searches or invasions of privacy.
The Court's decision in City of Pasco v. Shaw, issued September 13, 2007, involved a program to ensure that rental housing meets basic structural, health and safety requirements. In several earlier cases, the Washington Supreme Court had blocked housing inspection programs that used city inspectors to enter private property. In one case, the Court held that probable cause of a violation would be required and that there must be an appropriate warrant; in the second case, the Court found that there was inadequate authority under existing Washington law for "administrative warrants."
Pasco's programs allows landlords to select a city inspector, a trained private inspector certified by the city or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or a licensed structural engineer or architect. The inspector provides the landlord with a certification of code compliance, but is not required to provide the inspection report to City officials. The landlord simply must fix anything that is found out of compliance, until a certificate is finally provided. The Court ruled that because a landlord in Pasco has wide discretion in choosing which professional to carry out an inspection, and because the inspection report is not provided to the government, no "state action" is involved. In other words, although the ultimate result will be to cause all units to comply, the process is sufficiently private so that no governmental searches or privacy invasions are involved. The Court also ruled that protections in the landlord-tenant law provide sufficient guarantees that tenants' privacy rights will not be invaded.
This decision is not only important in the area of low-income housing. It is also important in connection with inspections for compliance with environmental protection laws, such as regulations governing septic systems and private wells.
Copies of the opinions in the case can be found at:
Additional information about the case, and its implications, can be obtained from the following attorneys at Foster Pepper who work in the municipal, land use and real estate groups, respectively: Hugh Spitzer, Patrick Schneider, and Chris Osborn.
