Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02274/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Delano
Appellee
Scott Yanke
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2274

___________

Scott Yanke, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the District of 

* Minnesota.

City of Delano, Minnesota, *

sued as The City of Delano, by * [UNPUBLISHED]

the City Council of the City, *

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2006

 Filed: March 22, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Scott Yanke brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging a provision

of the Delano City Code that requires property owners to arrange for an inspection of

their plumbing by the city or a licensed plumber if they do not want to pay a monthly

surcharge. Yanke contends that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it requires

illegal searches of private property. The district court1

 granted summary judgment in

favor of the city, and Yanke appeals. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023764
-2-

On February 4, 2003 the City of Delano enacted Ordinance § 603.02 in

response to significant flooding problems related to the municipal sewer system. This

ordinance requires every property owner in Delano who discharges into the city sewer

system to obtain an inspection either by the city or by a licensed plumber to ascertain

whether there is any prohibited discharge. Failure to obtain a property inspection can

result in a monthly surcharge of $100 until such time as an inspection is done. The

ordinance also allows the city council to grant a waiver where strict enforcement

would cause an undue hardship. Yanke failed to comply with the ordinance and was

assessed a surcharge; his application for a waiver was denied. The city has not

entered Yanke's home without his permission or arranged for anyone else to do so and

it has not commenced criminal proceedings against him. Yanke is the only property

owner in Delano who has not complied with the ordinance. 

Yanke brought this action in the district court, complaining that the ordinance

violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and

the state constitution. The district court granted summary judgment to Delano after

concluding that the Fourth Amendment neither applies to private plumbers since they

are not government actors nor prohibits the surcharge for failure to comply with the

ordinance. It concluded that Yanke had not shown any violation of the state or federal

constitution. On his appeal Yanke complains that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment and argues that the Fourth Amendment is implicated because the

private plumbers are acting as agents of the government when conducting an

inspection under the ordinance, and an administrative warrant is required. Our review

of his constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Collins, 321 F.3d 691, 694

(8th Cir. 2003).

Whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated under the Delano ordinance

depends on whether the activities of private plumbers are attributable to the city

government. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n., 489 U.S. 602, 614

(1989). Before a private plumber's acts can be attributed to the city there must be

Appellate Case: 05-2274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023764
-3-

some showing that the government instigated or directed the plumber's actions, and

there was no such showing here. See United States v. Luciow, 518 F.2d 298, 300 (8th

Cir. 1975). Under the ordinance it is the property owner not the city who initiates an

arrangement with a private plumber, and property owners have the option to pay a

monthly surcharge if they do not want their premises inspected. See also City of Pasco

v. Shaw, 110 P.3d 1200 (Wash. App. 2005) (upholding a similar city ordinance that

required landlord to provide certificate of inspection or lose rental license). Moreover,

Yanke's home was never searched. We conclude that the Fourth Amendment is not

implicated in these circumstances and that Yanke has shown no constitutional

violation.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2274 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023764