# United States Court of A ppe als For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 6- 15 88

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Haji Azam

Pla in ti ff - App el la nt

v.

Ci ty of Co lu m

bi a Hei gh ts

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 17 , 20 16 Fi le d: Ju ly 31, 2 01 7 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re BENTON an d SHEPHERD, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d EBINGER, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Fo r ap pr oxim at el y si x m on th s, Defen da nt –Ap pe ll ee Ci ty of Co lu m bi a He igh ts,
Mi nn es ot a (th e Ci ty), dir ect ed it s p ol ic e o ffi cers to in ve st ig at e an d s tri ct ly san ct io n

The Hon or ab le Reb ecca Goo dg am e Ebi ng er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r 1 th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.P l ai nt iff

–Ap pe ll an t Haji Azam
, th e own er an d la nd lo rd of se ve ral hi st or ic al ly

un m an ag eab le ren ta l pr op ert ie s, fo r vi ol at in g th e Ci ty’ s m un ic ip al co de

. The s e

en fo rcem en t effo rts in cl ud ed en te rin g Azam ’s ren ta l bu il di ng s, wit ho ut co ns en t or a

warra nt , to lo ok fo r m

un ic ip al -co de vi ol a ti on s an d ci ti ng Azam fo r al l vi ol at io ns di s c ov ered

. Bas ed in pa rt on th es e vi ol at io ns , th e Ci ty rev ok ed th e ren ta l li cen se s

au th or iz in g Azam to ren t un it s to te na nt s. Aza m fil ed an act io n ag ai ns t th e Ci ty fo r it s co nd uc t, al l e g i n g , am on g ot he r cl ai m s, th e Ci ty vi ol at ed 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 by

su bjec ti ng Azam to th e de pr iv at io n of hi s rig ht s, pr iv il eg es , or im m un it ie s un de r th e Fo ur th an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. The Ci ty fil ed

a m ot i o n f

o r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Ci ty su m m ary 2 jud gm en t o n a ll of Az am ’s cla im s.

Azam ap pe al s on ly th e co ur t’s ru li ng gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t on Azam ’s
Fo ur th an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s. Thu s, th ere are two is su es on ap pe al

. Fi rs t,
whe th er t he re is a ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er th e Ci ty—by

su bjec ti ng Azam to th e in crea se d en f o r c e m en t effo rts de sc rib ed in gr eat er de ta il
be lo w—v io la te d Azam ’s su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur te en th
Am en dm en t. Seco nd

, whe th er th ere is a ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er
t h e C it y —i n en te rin g th e ren ta l bu il di ng s’ co m m on area s, wit ho ut co ns en t or a

warra nt , to lo ok fo r m

un ic ip al -co de vi ol at io ns —v io la te d A za m ’ s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m

un reas on ab le go ve rn m en ta l s earc he s.

Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t. W e co nc lu de Azam di d

no t de m on st rat e, as a m at te r of la w, th e Ci ty vi ol at ed hi s su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p r oc es s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en d men t. The Ci ty’ s co nd uc t di d no t ov erco m e th e hi gh st an da rd req ui red fo r a su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s cl ai m —t ha t is

, it s co nd uc t was

no t arb it rary, oppres si ve , an d sh oc ki ng to th e co ns ci en ce. Als o, in vi ewin g th e al le ge d

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2 of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-f

a c t s i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Azam (as we m us t do ), we co nc lu de th ere is n o
ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact reg ard in g whet he r th e Ci ty vi ol at ed Azam ’s Fo ur th
Am en dm en t rig h t s

. A z a m di d no t ha ve a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e

co m m on sp aces en te red by t he Ci ty’ s po li c e o f f i c ers . An y arg um en t th at th e po li ce of fic ers m ay ha ve p h ys i c al ly in tru de d on co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed area s by

tre sp as si ng in Azam ’s bu il di ng s to se arch fo r in cri m in at in g ev id en ce was waiv ed

. W e ad dr es s ea ch cla im

in tu rn

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

W e reco un t th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty. Se e Myer s v. Lu ts en Mou nt ai ns Co rp

. , 58 7 F .3d 89 1, 8 93 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Fro m Sep te m

be r 20 13 to Ja nu ary 20 14
, th e Ci ty di rect ed it s po li ce of fic ers to

co nd uc t w e e k ly in ve st ig at io ns of Azam ’s ren ta l bu il di ng s. The po li ce of fic ers al le ge dl y en te red Azam ’s bu il di ng s (ev en if th ey were lo ck ed ), lo ok ed fo r vi ol at io ns

o f th e Ci ty’ s m

un ic ip al or di na nc es , an d ci te d Azam fo r an y vi ol at io ns th ey fo u n d

. Thro ug h th es e in ve st ig at io ns , t h e C i ty ci te d Azam nu m ero us ti m es fo r m un ic ip al

co de vi ol at io ns , far m or e freq ue nt ly th an it di d fo r ot he r ren ta l-p ro pe rty own ers in th e ci ty. Bas ed on th es e ci ta ti on s an d th e recu rri ng , si gn ifi can t pr ob le m s at Azam ’s

pr op ert ie s, t he Cit y

rev ok ed Azam ’s ren ta l l ic en se s.

Dur in g th e rel ev an t ti m e pe rio d

, A zam own ed fiv e ap art m en t bu il di ng s in
Co lu m bi a Heig ht s, Mi nn es ot a. The se ap art m en t bu il di ng s in cl ud ed o n e 4 -u ni t
bu il di ng on Pi erce St reet , two 7- un it bu il di ng s on Ty l e r S t reet , an d two 11 -u ni t
bu il di ng s on Uni ve rs it y Ave nu e. To le as e th e un it s in hi s bu il di ng s to te na nt s, Azam

acq ui red an d m ai n t a i n e d a ren ta l li cen se fo r each bu il di ng , as was req ui red by th e Co lu m bi a Heig ht s m

un ic ip al co de

. Se e Co lu m bi a Heig ht s, Mi nn ., Pro pe rty
Mai nt en an ce Co de (Pro pe rty Cod e) § 5A.4 01 (A).

-3

-Acco rd in g to th e Ci ty, Azam ’s ren ta l pr op ert ie s ex pe r i e n c e d “ an in or di na te

am ou nt of cri m e an d cal ls fo r se rv ic e” be gi nn in g in 20 09

. In an e-m ai l da te d May 23
, 20 09
, Co lu m

bi a H e i g h t s Po li ce Ch ie f Sco tt Nad eau no ti fie d Po li ce Serg ean t Mat t
Mar kh am of th e Ci ty’ s co m pl ai nt s reg ard in g Azam ’s ren ta l pr op ert ie s. Ch ie f Nad eau

co m m en te d th at on e of Azam ’s Ty le r St reet pr op ert ie s “ lo ok s li ke it co nt in ue s to be

a pr ob l e m ” an d th at th e Ci ty sh ou ld “ st art to try an d do cu m en t th e in sa ni ty on th at

pr op ert y an d in th e ne ig hb or ho od fo r whe n (n ot if) we try to pu ll th e li cen se .” Fro m 2 0 0 9 t o 2 01 3, Azam an d Ci ty of fic ia ls co m

m un ic at ed reg ard in g is su es wit h hi s
pr op ert ie s in pe rs on at le as t twen ty-t w o ti m es an d vi a ph on e, e-m ai l, an d le tt er

nu m ero us ot he r ti m es

. Acco rd in g to Co lu m bi a Heig ht s Po li ce Cap ta in Len ny Aus ti n, Azam fai le d t o a dd res s t he pro bl em s at hi s re nt al pro pe rti es an d t he Cit y “ ha [d ] no t
ha d ot he r ren ta l pr op ert ie s th at ha [d ] ris en to th e le ve l of cal ls fo r se rv ic e an d cri m in al

act iv it y co m pa red to [Azam ’s] pro pe rti es .”

The Co lu m

bi a Heig ht s m

un ic ip al co de gr an ts th e Ci ty va rio us po wers to de al
wit h pr op ert ie s, in cl ud in g ren ta l pr op ert ie s, th at vi ol at e th e Ci ty’ s ho us in g, nu is an ce,

an d sa fet y or di na nc es

. Fo r ex am pl e, th e Co lu m

bi a Heig ht s Ci ty Co un ci l m ay rev ok e

a ren ta l li cen se whe n it de te rm in es th e ren ta l pr op ert y d o e s n o t co m pl y wit h th e Pro pe rty Co de

. Pro pe rty Co de § 5A.4 08 ( A )

– ( B )

. Als o, whe n two or m or e ren ta l
l i cen se s of th e sa m e pr op ert y own er ha ve be en rev ok ed

, th e pr op ert y own er i s in el ig ib le to ho ld a Co lu mb i a H e i g h t s ren ta l li cen se fo r a pe rio d of fiv e y ears , an d
th us , an y ren ta l li cen se th e pr op ert y own er ho ld s is rev ok ed

. I d

. § 5 A

. 4 08 (E). The
Ci ty al so m ay im

po se a “ nu is an ce cal l” fee whe n th e Ci ty res po nd s to th ree or m or e

nu is an ce cal ls reg ard in g th e sa m e pr ope rt y w ith in one y ear. Co lu m

bi a Heig ht s, Mi nn ., Pu bl ic Heal th an d Safe ty C o d e ( S a fet y Co de ) § 8.8 04 (a). Fi na ll y , al th ou gh no t

es ta bl is he d in th e Co lu m

bi a Heig ht s m

un ic ip al co de

, th e Ci ty so m et im es en te rs in to

a “ m it ig at io n pl an ” wit h an own er of a ren ta l pr op ert y ex pe rie nc in g s i g n i f i c an t
cri m in al act iv i ty. Thro ug h a m it ig at io n pl an , th e Ci ty reco m m en ds cert ai n act io ns in te nd ed to all ev ia te th os e is su es

.

-4

-Azam an d th e Ci ty en te red in to m it ig at io n pl an s in 20 09 fo r Azam ’s Ty le r

St reet pr op ert ie s an d in 20 10 fo r hi s Uni v e r s it y Ave nu e pr op ert ie s. Azam
im pl em en te d th e m it ig at io n pl an s’ reco m m en da ti on s. Acco rd in g to Cap ta in Aus ti n,
ot he r ren ta l-p ro pe rty own ers who ha d im pl em en te d m it ig at io n pl an s bo th lo wered th e le ve ls of cri m in al act iv it y at th ei r pr op ert ie s and m ai nt ai ne d th os e lo wer lev el s. But
wit h Azam ’s pr op ert ie s, Cap ta in Aus ti n st at ed

, th e m it ig at io n pl an s he lp ed lo wer th e

am ou nt of c riminal act iv it y on ly ini ti al ly, be fo re i t ag ai n i nc reas ed

.

On Sep te m

be r 18
, 20 13
, Cap ta in Aus ti n se nt a m em or an du m t o t he Ci ty’ s
po li ce of fic ers , no ti fy in g t h e m of ad di ti on al effo rts to ad dr es s pr ob le m s at Azam ’s
bu il di ng s. Cap ta in Aus ti n dire ct ed the po li ce of fic ers to in ve st ig at e th e bu il di ng s each
week an d lo ok fo r m

un ic ip al -co de vi ol at io ns in vo lv in g “ se cu rit y , s afet y an d he al th
is su es .” Cap ta in Aus ti n la te r to ld th e of fic ers t h a t i f th ey were un ab le to en te r th e bu il di ng s, th ey sh ou ld us e th e bu il di ng s’ em erg en cy fir e ke y s to un lo ck th e ex te rio r do or s an d en te r. The Ci ty di d no t ob ta in a warra nt to se arch th e pr op ert ie s, no r do es it as se rt it ha d co ns en t to en te r Azam ’s bu il di ng s or co nd uc t th e in v es ti ga ti on s. Alt ho ug h t he Cit y ’s po li ce d ep art m en t co nd uc te d t hi s t y pe of in ve st ig at io n a t o th er
pr op ert ie s in th e pa st , th e po li ce de pa rtment ha d no t do ne so on a week ly ba si s. The

po li ce de pa rtment co n d u c t e d it s in ve st ig at io ns of Azam ’s bu il di ng s on a week ly
ba si s, Cap ta in Aus ti n ex pl ai ne d, be cau se no ot he r pr oper ty ha d expe rie nc ed “ th e le ve l
of cal ls fo r se rv ic e an d cri m in al act iv it y co m pa red to [Azam ’s] pr op ert ie s.” Cap ta in
Aus ti n al so st at ed ren ta l-p ro pe rty in ve st ig at io ns were cu st om ari ly ha nd le d by th e fir e de pa rtment, ra th er t ha n t he po li ce d ep art m en t. 3

Fro m Sep te m

be r 15
, 20 13
, th ro ug h Decem be r 22
, 20 13
, th e Ci ty’ s po li ce of fic ers ci te d Azam te n ti m es fo r a to ta l o f th irt een vi ol at io ns as so ci at ed wit h hi s

The Pro pe rty Co de pr ov id es : “ The Ci ty Man ag er an d hi s de si gn at ed ag en ts 3 sh al l be th e Pro pe rty Mai nt en an ce Enfo rcem en t Offi cer who sh al l ad m in is te r an d

en fo rce t he pro vi si on s o f th e ch ap te r.” Pro pe rty Cod e § 5A.3 01

.

-5

-ren ta l pr op ert ie s. Azam rece iv ed se ve n vi ol at io ns fo r fai li ng to ha ve co m pl ia nt 3

se cu rit y do or s, two vi ol at io ns fo r fai li ng to se cu re la un dr y -ro om do or s, th ree vi ol at io ns fo r fai li ng to ha ve sm ok e de te ct or s, an d o n e v i ol at io n fo r fai li ng to

pr om pt l y r e mo v e sn ow accu m ul at io n. Thre e of th e ci ta ti on s, th ou gh it is un cl ear whi ch

, oc cu rred whi le fir e- or po li ce-d ep art m en t pe rs on ne l were in Azam ’s bu il di ng s fo r em erg en cy or un rel at ed cal ls

. I t a pp ears so m e of th e vi ol at io ns —s uc h as th e vi ol at io n fo r f

a i l in g to rem ov e sn ow— di d no t req ui re en try in to th e in te rio r of th e
pr op ert y . Azam

als o p ai d t he Cit y

for nu m ero us nu is an ce-c al l fe es

.

In Ja nu ary 20 14
, th e Ci ty’ s fir e an d po li ce ch ie fs se nt Azam a le tt er no ti fy in g hi m th e Ci ty Co un ci l wou ld m eet on Mar ch 24
, 20 14
, to di sc us s th e pr ob le m s at hi s
pr op ert ie s. The y al so in fo rm ed Aza m t he y wou ld ad vi se th e Ci ty Co un ci l no t to

ren ew hi s re nt al li cen se s fo r hi s Un iv ers it y Aven ue pro pe rti es

.

The he ari ng reg ard in g Azam ’s Un iv ers it y Ave nu e pr op ert ie s co m m en ced on Mar ch 24
, 20 14
, as sc he du le d. The Ci ty’ s st aff reco m m en de d rev ok in g Azam ’s ren ta l
li cen se s fo r th es e pr op ert ie s “ du e to a di sp ro p o r t i o n at e am ou nt of po li ce cal ls

, cri m in al act iv it y an d nu is an ce vi ol a t i o n s at Azam ’s pr op ert ie s.” At th e en d of th e he ari ng , th e Ci ty Co un ci l rev ok ed Azam ’s ren ta l li cen se s fo r hi s Uni ve rs it y Ave nu e
pr op ert ie s. The da y aft er th e he ari ng , C ap ta in Aus ti n s e nt th e Ci ty’ s po li ce of fic ers

a m em or an du m

can cel li ng th e week ly inv es ti ga ti on s o f Azam ’s ren ta l p ro pe rti es

.

On Apr il 17
, 20 14
, Azam so ld hi s Uni ve rs it y Ave n ue an d Ty le r St reet

pr op ert ie s.

Des pi te th e fact Azam ha d so ld hi s Tyl e r S t r e e t pr op ert ie s, th e Ci ty Co un ci l
he ld a he ari ng reg ard in g th os e pr op ert ie s an d Azam ’s Pi erce St reet pr op ert y on Apr il
28
, 20 1 4

. Th e C i ty’ s st aff reco m m en de d rev ok in g Azam ’s ren ta l li cen se s fo r th es e

A Min ne so ta st at e co ur t d is m is se d a ll of t he cit at io ns

. 3

-6

-pr op ert ie s. At th e en d of th e he ari ng , th e Ci ty Co un ci l rev ok ed Azam ’s ren ta l li cen se s

fo r th e Ty le r St reet pr op ert ie s. The Ci ty Co un ci l th en rev o ke d Azam ’s rem ai ni ng

ren ta l li cen se —fo r hi s Pi erce St reet pr op ert y —p ur su an t to Pro pe rty Co de s e c t i o n 5A.4 08 (E), be cau se th e Ci ty Co un ci l ha d rev ok ed at l e as t two of Azam ’s ren ta l
li cen se s an d, th eref

or e, he was no t el ig ib le to ho ld a Co lu m bi a Heig ht s ren ta l li cen se fo r fiv e y ears

. Acco rd in g to th e lo wer co ur t’s fin di ng s, Azam ’s ren ta l li cen se s ap pe ar
to be th e on l y r en ta l li cen se s th e Ci ty Co un ci l rev ok ed ba se d up on a “ ‘[p]ersi st en t [an d] di sp ro po rt ion at e num be r of pol ic e cal ls

, cri m in al act iv it y ,’ an d ge ne ric al ly ti tl ed
‘hou si ng co de vi ol at io ns .’ ”

On Ju ne 13
, 20 14
, Azam so ld h i s Pi erce St reet pr op ert y

. He no lo ng er own s

an y pro pe rty in C ol um

bi a Hei gh ts , Min ne so ta

.

On Mar ch 24
, 20 14 (th e sa m e da y as th e fir st Ci ty Co un ci l he ari ng on Azam ’s

pr op ert ie s)

, Azam fil ed a co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t th e Ci ty. Azam al le ge d th e C it y ha d
vi ol at ed : 1) 42 U.S.C. § 19 83
, by in fri ng in g hi s Fou rth an d Fou rte en th Am en dm en t rig ht s; an d 2) th e Fai r Hou si ng Act an d va rio us fed eral st at ut e s , b y i nf rin gi ng hi s rig ht s to be free fro m un la wfu l d i s c r i m in at io n. Azam al so req ue st ed de cl arat or y jud gm en t an d in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. The Ci ty fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on al l
cl ai m s, whi ch Azam res is te d. The di s t r i c t co ur t co nc lu de d th ere was no ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact an d Azam fai le d to pr od uc e ev id en ce sh owi ng , as a m at te r of
la w, th e Ci ty: 1) su bjec te d Aza m to un la wfu l d is cri m in at io n i n v io la ti on of t he Fai r Hou si ng A c t a n d th e ot he r fed eral st at ut es ; 2) in va de d a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed

area or an area whe re Azam he ld a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in vi ol at io n of
th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t; or 3 ) v i ol at ed Azam ’s su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s rig ht s in
vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t

. Th e di st ric t co ur t al so de ni ed Azam ’s

req ue st for de cl arat or y

jud gm en t an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f.

-7

-Azam t i mel y f i le d a no ti ce of ap pe al

. On ap pe al

, Azam ch al le ng es on ly th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Ci ty on Azam ’s Fo ur th an d
Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

.

II. St an da rd

s o f Rev ie w

W he n co ns id eri ng a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, “ [t]he co ur t sh al l gr an t

su m m ary jud gm en t if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu i n e d i s p ut e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). The m ov in g pa rty be ars th e bu rd en to m ak e th is sh owi ng

. Id

. In co ns id eri ng th e su ffi ci en cy of th e reco rd

, we vi ew it “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab l e t o t he no nm ov in g p art y .” Myer

s , 58 7 F .3d at 8 93

.

III. Dis cu ss io n

Azam ap pe al s two ru li ng s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. Fi rs t, Azam
ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng gr an ti ng th e Ci ty su m m ary jud gm en t on Azam ’s
cl ai m th e Ci ty vi ol at ed hi s su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s rig ht s t hr ou gh it s in crea se d

en fo rcem en t effo rts ag ai ns t Azam fo r m un ic ip al -co de vi ol a t i o n s

. Seco nd

, Azam

a p pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng gr an ti ng th e Ci ty su m m ary jud gm en t on Azam ’s
cl ai m th e Ci ty vi ol at ed hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s by en te rin g th e co m m on area s of hi s ren ta l pr op ert ie s wit ho ut a warra n t t o l oo k fo r m un ic ip al -co de vi ol at io ns

. Azam ’s c la im s fo r al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns are ba se d on 42 U.S

. C. § 19 83
, whi ch es ta bl is he s a cau se of a c t i o n ag ai ns t a pe rs on who

, un de r co lo r of la w, 4

The Su pr em e Co ur t h as he ld

, “ Loc al go ve rn in g bo di es ,” in cl ud in g 4

m un ic ip al it ie s, “ can be su ed di rect ly un de r § 19 83

. . . whe re

. . . t h e act io n th at is al le ge d to be un co ns ti tu ti on al im pl em en ts or ex ecu te s a po li cy st at em en t, or di na nc e, reg ul at io n, or deci si on of fic ia ll y ad op te d a nd pro m

ul ga te d b y

th at bo dy’ s offi cers .” Mon el l v. Dep ’t o

f S oc ia l S er vs . of N.Y

. , 43 6 U.S. 6 58 , 69 0 (1 97 8)

.

-8

-“ su bjec ts , or cau se s to be su bjec te d, an y ci ti zen of th e Uni te d S t a t e s

. . . to th e

de pr iv at io n of any rig ht s, pri vi le ge s, or im m un it ie s secu red by th e Co ns ti tu ti on an d
la ws.”

A. Fou rt een th Amend men t Cl ai m

Azam cl ai m s th e Ci ty vi ol a te d hi s Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s whe n it

,

“ un de r co lo r of la w, en ga ge d in a pa tt ern of arb it rary an d op pr es si ve po li ce be ha vi or
ta rg et in g hi s pr op ert ie s an d ho ld in g hi m li ab le wit ho u t n ot ic e fo r th e act s of hi s
te na nt s wi th th e in te nt to for ce h im ou t of bus in es s.” Azam arg ue s t he di st ric t co ur t

erre d in di sm is si n g h i s Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m be cau se a “ reas on ab le jury

co ul d co nc lu de

. . . [th e Ci ty] act ed wit h de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to Mr. Azam ’s rig ht s, in a way th at was arb it rary an d op pr es si v e an d sh oc ks th e co ns ci en ce, an d th at it
sh ou l d b e h el d li ab le fo r it s act io ns .” W e m us t de te rm in e whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y gra nt ed su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m

.

Thi s Co ur t ha s r e p e a t e dl y em ph as iz ed th e hi gh bu rd en faci ng a pe rs on who
cl ai m s a vi ol at io n of hi s or he r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s. To de m on st rat e th e
go ve rn m en t vi ol at ed a pe rs on ’s su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s rig ht s, th e cl a im an t m us t
sh ow ev id en ce of “ a co ns ti tu ti on al l y p r o te ct ed pr op ert y in te res t an d th at [g over nm en ta l] of

fic ia ls us ed th ei r po wer in su ch an arb it rary an d op pr es si ve way th at
it ‘sho ck s th e co ns ci en ce.’” Ent er gy , Ark., In c. v. Neb ra sk

a , 24 1 F.3 d 97 9, 99 1 (8 th 5
Ci r. 20 01 ) (q uo ti ng Ct

y. of Sa cr ame nt o v. Lewi s , 5 2 3 U.S. 8 33 , 8 45 –4 6 (1 99 8) ). In
d o i n g s o , th e cl ai m an t m us t sh ow “ m or e th an th at th e go ve rn m en t de ci si on was

Azam co nt en ds th e Ci ty “ ne ve r c h a ll en ge d— an d th e co ur t be lo w ne ve r 5 he ld —[Az am ] do es no t ha ve a co n s t i t ut io na ll y pr ot ect ed in te res t in th e us e of hi s pr op ert ie s an d th e ren ta l li cen se s fo r th e ap art m en t bu il di ng s he own ed .” The Ci ty do es no t di sp ut e th is as se rti on

. W e th eref or e as su m e Aza m h a d a co ns ti tu ti on al ly
pr ot ect ed pro pe rty int eres t.

-9

-arb it rary, cap ric io us , or in vi ol at io n of st at e la w.” Ch es te rf ie ld Dev. Co rp

. v. Ci ty of
Ch es te rf ie ld

, 96 3 F.2 d 11 02
, 11 04 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Rat he r, t he al le ga ti on s m us t
de m on st rat e, in pa rt, a “ tru ly irr at io na l” go ve rn m en ta l act io n, su ch as “ at te m pt in g to

ap pl y a zo ni ng or di na nc e on ly to pe rs on s who se na m es be gi n wit h a le tt er in th e fir st
h a l f of th e al ph ab et .” Id

. “ The go ve rn m en t act io n m us t be arb it rary in t h e

co ns ti tu ti on al sen se .” Roz man v. Cit y of Co lu mbi a Heig ht

s , 2 68 F.3 d 5 88 , 59 3 (8 th
Ci r. 20 01 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ti ng Co ll in s v. Ci ty of Har ker Heig ht s , 50 3 U

. S

. 1 1 5
, 1 29 (1 99 2) ). “ [T]he th eo ry of su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s,” we ha v e n o t e d, “ is pr op erl y

res erv ed fo r tru ly egreg io us an d e xt rao rd in ary cas es .” Ch es te rf ie ld Dev. Cor

p. , 96 3
F.2 d at 11 05

. Su ch a cas e m us t be so ab us iv e as to be “ of fen si ve to hu m an di gn it y .”
Se e New v. Cit

y o f Mi nn ea po li s , 79 2 F .2d 72 4, 7 26 (8t h C ir. 1 98 6)

.

Thi s Co ur t’s op in io n in Gal la gh er v. Mag ne r is in st ru ct iv e. 61 9 F.3 d 82 3 (8 th
Ci r. 20 10 ). In Gal la gh er , th e ci ty o f St . P au l, Mi nn es ot a, in crea se d it s en fo rcem en t
effo rts on cert ai n cat eg or ie s of ho us in g. Id

. at 82 9. The ci ty ta rg et ed al l ren ta l

pr op e r t i e s be cau se a ci ty of fic ia l ov ers eei ng ho us in g- co de en fo rcem en t “ fav or ed

own er-o ccu pi ed ho us in g ov er ren ta l ho us in g ‘for th e sa ke of th e ne ig hb or ho od .’ ” Id

. The se en fo rcem en t effo rts in cl ud ed “ swe ep [in g]” ren ta l pr op ert ie s to fin d an d ci te fo r ho us in g- co de vi ol at io ns , ci ti ng ev ery vi ol at io n of fic ia ls co ul d fin d at no t on ly ren ta l

pr op ert ie s rep or te d to of fic ia ls bu t al so al l ne arb y r e n t a l pr op ert ie s, an d req ui rin g

nu m ero us ren ta l-p ro pe rty own ers to un de rta ke ex pe ns iv e ren ov at io ns of th ei r ren ta l

pr op ert ie s. Id

. at 82 9– 30

. Thi s Co ur t he ld

, “ In li gh t of th e un co nt es te d le gi ti m at e
go al s of en fo rci ng th e Hou si ng Co de

, th ere is in su f f i c i en t ev id en ce to reas on ab ly

co nc lu de th at th is is a ‘trul y eg reg io us an d ex tra or di na ry ’ ex am pl e of go ve rn m en t

reg ul at io n.” Id

. at 84 0.

Our op in io n in Roz man v. Ci ty of Co lu mbi a Heig ht s al so gu id es ou r an al y si s. 26 8 F

. 3d 58 8. In Roz man , th e ci ty of Co lu m bi a Heig ht s, Mi nn es ot a, rev ok ed a la nd lo rd ’s ren ta l li cen se s aft er he refu se d to sc he du le ci ty in sp ect io ns of hi s ren ta l

un it s. Id

. at 59 0. The en ba nc co ur t he ld th at , ev en a s s u mi n g th e Ci ty ha d

-1 0-m is in te rp ret ed th e m un ic ip al co de whe n rev ok in g t h e la nd lo rd ’s ren ta l li cen se s:

“ W hi le th e act io n of th e Ci ty to ward s [th e la nd lo rd ]

. . . m ay no t ha ve co m pl ie d wit h
th e pr ov is io ns of th e la w as it m ay ul ti m at el y be in te rp ret ed

, th at act io n cert ai nl y di d

n o t ris e to th e le ve l of a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n of su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s.” Id

. a t
59 3.

H er e, A za

m cl ai m s th e Ci ty vi ol at ed hi s su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s ri ght s thr ough
it s “ pa tt ern of arb it rary an d op pr es si ve po l i c e b e ha vi or ta rg et in g hi s pr op ert ie s an d
ho ld in g hi m l i a b l e w i th ou t no ti ce fo r th e act s of hi s te na nt s wit h th e in te nt to fo rce hi m ou t of bu si ne ss —ev en tu al ly su ccee d i n g .” In su pp or t of th is cl ai m , Azam
ad va nc es fo ur arg ume n t s : 1 ) th e nu is an ce-c al l fees were im po se d in an arb it rary

m an ne r; 2) th e Ci ty’ s in crea se d e nf or cem en t effo rts were an op pr es si ve us e of it s
po li ce po wer; 3) th e Ci ty sh owe d de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to Azam ’s rig ht s; an d 4) th e Ci ty’ s ac t i o n s s h oc k th e co ns ci en ce. W e di sa gr ee wit h th es e co nt en ti on s. W e

co nc lu de Azam ha s fai le d t o de m on st rat e, as a m at te r of la w, th e Ci ty en ga ge d in
arb it rary, opp res si ve co nd uc t t ha t s ho ck s t he co ns ci en ce.

Fi rs t, the Ci ty di d no t i m

po se it s nu is an ce-c al l fees in an arb it rary m an ne r. In

su pp or t of th is cl ai m , Azam co nt en ds th e Ci ty “ arb it rari ly ch o[ se ] to tre at al l bu il di ng s th e sa m e, whe th er si ng le -fam il y dwe ll in gs or Mr. Azam ’s 11 -f am il y ap art m en t
bu il di ng s” an d it “ h[ el d] Mr. Azam res po ns ib le

, no t on ly fo r th e act io ns of hi s te na nt s

on hi s pro pe rty, bu t th e act io ns of hi s t en an ts when no t at Azam ’s ren ta l p ro pe rti es ,

or e v en th e act io ns of no n- res id en ts on hi s pr op ert y .” The m un ic ip al or di na nc e

es ta bl is hi ng nu is an ce-c al l fees ex pr es sl y de cl ares th e pu rp o se of su ch fees is to

“ pr ot ect th e pu bl ic sa fet y , he al th an d welf are an d to pr ev en t an d ab at e rep eat se rv ic e

res po ns e cal ls by th e ci ty to th e sa me pr op er ty or lo ca ti on fo r nu i s a n c e se rv ic e cal ls

. . . whi ch pr ev en t po li ce or pu bl ic sa f e t y s e rv ic es to ot he r res id en ts of th e

c i t y

. . . [an d] th at ge ne rat e[] ex tra or di na ry co st s to th e ci ty.” Safe ty Co de § 8

. 8 0 1 (em ph as is ad de d)

. By im

po si ng th es e fees

, th e Ci ty se ek s to fo rg o Ci ty of fic ia ls fro m ha vi ng to rep eat ed ly res po nd to tro ub le so m e pr op ert ie s— reg ard le ss of th e nu m be r of

-1 1-un it s— to ad dr es s nu is an ce vi ol at io ns. By im po si ng th es e fees

, th e Ci ty was no t act in g in an arb it rary m an ne r.

Seco nd

, th e Ci ty’ s in crea se d en fo rcem en t effo rts ag ai ns t Azam were no t an
op pr es si ve us e of it s po li ce po wer. Azam cl ai m s th e Ci ty in te nd ed to an d su ccee de d
in rev ok in g hi s ren ta l li cen se s th ro ug h it s en fo rcem en t effo rts

. Bu t th e reco rd refl ect s
ap pr ox im at el y fo ur y ears of ho us in g an d sa fet y pr ob le m s at Azam ’s ren ta l pr op ert ie s,

an d effo rts by th e C i t y to rem ed y th es e pr ob le m s. The Ci ty al le ge s it in crea se d it s

en fo rcem en t ef

f o r t s a t Azam ’s ren ta l pr op ert ie s be cau se of th e pe rs is te nt , di sp ro po rti on at e ho us in g- an d sa fet y -co de pr ob le ms at th e pr op ert ie s. The Ci ty’ s

en fo rcem en t effo rt s a g ai ns t Azam were, as th e Ci ty as se rts , “ fo r th e le gi ti m at e
p u r po se of pr ot ect in g th e he al th

, sa fet y , an d welf are of res id en ti al te na nt s

. ” F o r

ex am pl e, th e Ci ty po in ts to an in ci de nt whe re a ha nd gu n was reco ve red fro m a ba by’ s cri b as an in ci de nt le ad in g “ th e Ci ty to be li ev e m or e effe ct iv e m eas u r e s were

ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect ci ti zen s li vi ng in Azam ’s bu il di ng s.” In su pp or t of hi s arg um en t,
Azam hi gh li gh ts th e fact th at th e Ci ty’ s po li ce of fi ce rs dis co nt in ue d th ei r en fo rcem en t
effo rts at Azam ’s ren ta l pr op ert ie s aft er he s o l d t he ren ta l pr op ert ie s. Thi s, to o, th e Ci ty ex pl ai ne d, s ta ti ng it “ st op [p ed ] th e walk th ro ug hs to pr ov id e th e ne w o wne r an
op po rtu ni ty to im

pr ov e co nd it io ns at th e ap a r t ment co m pl ex es wit ho ut ad di ti on al

en fo rcem en t m eas ur es .” Eve n acce pt in g Azam ’s as ser tio n th e Ci ty in te nd ed to rev ok e hi s ren ta l li cen se s, th e Ci ty’ s act io ns were no t an op pr es si ve us e of it s po li ce po wer.

Thi rd

, Azam

ha s fa il ed to sh ow t he Cit y act ed wit h del ib erat e in di ffer en ce to
Azam ’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. In su pp or t of th is cl ai m , Azam as se rts m an y of th e sa m e
arg um en ts di sc us se d abo ve

. Thi s clai m fai ls fo r th e sa m e rea so ns —t he Cit y di d n ot

act in an arb it rary, op pr es si ve m an ne r. Add it io na ll y , al th ou gh a m un ic ip al it y can be
li ab le un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 fo r fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly tra in it s po li ce of fic ers “ whe re th e fai lu re to tra in am ou nt s to de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to th e r i g h ts of pe rs on s wit h
who m th e po li ce c o m e in to co nt act ,” Ci ty of Ca nt on v. Har ri s , 48 9 U.S. 37 8, 38 8 (1 98 9) , th ere i s n o e vi de nc e o f su ch a vi ol at io n h ere.

-1 2-Fo ur th

, Azam ’s cl ai m do es no t ov erco m e th e hi gh st an da rd req ui red fo r th e la st

el em e nt of a su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s cl ai m —i .e., th at th e Ci ty’ s act io ns sh oc k th e

co ns ci en ce. It do es no t sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce th at th e Ci ty in crea se d it s en fo rcem en t
effo rts at pr op ert ie s wit h pe rs is te nt , si gnifican t cri m in al co nd uc t, nu is an ce vi ol at io ns ,

an d P r o p e r ty Co de vi ol at io ns ; th at th e Ci ty i ss ue d nu is an ce-c al l fees to Azam aft er
rep eat ed ly res po nd in g to hi s ren ta l pr op ert ie s fo r nu is an ce cal ls ; or th at th e Ci ty ci te d
Azam fo r nu is an ce vi ol at io n s by hi s te na nt s or by no n- res id en ts at th e ren ta l

pr op ert ie s. Si m

pl y pu t, t he Cit y ’s act io ns do no t s ho ck th e co ns ci en ce.

The go ve rn m en t, by op pr es si ve ly an d arb it rari ly im po si ng it s po li ce po wer on

a pe rs on , can vi ol at e t h a t p e r s on ’s su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s rig ht s. Se e Roc hi n v. Ca li fo rn ia
, 34 2 U.S. 16 5, 20 9– 10 (1 95 2)

. Bu t th e Ci ty’ s us e of it s po wers to de al wit h
hi st or ic al ly un m an ag eab le pr op ert ie s— ev en in th e m an ne r Azam al le ge s— do es no t
ris e to th e le ve l of a Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n. W e th eref or e affi rm th e di st ric t

c o ur t’s ru li ng gr an ti ng th e Ci ty su m m ary jud gm en t on Azam ’s Fo ur t e e n t h
Am en dm en t cl ai m

.

B. Fou rt h Amen dme nt Cla im

Azam co nt en ds th e di st ric t c o u r t erre d in di sm is si ng hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t
cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t he ld th e Ci ty di d no t, as a m at te r of la w, vi ol at e Azam ’s
Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts , con cl ud in g Aza m di d n ot ha ve a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ren ta l pr op ert ie s’ co m m on area s an d th e Ci ty di d no t in tr u d e on a

co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct ed area . The q ue st io n n ow b efo re the Co ur t i s wh et he r th ere is a ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er Azam ha d a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pri va cy th at was v io la te d. 6

The Su pr em e Co u r t ha s al so ex po un de d a pr op ert y -ri gh ts pa rad ig m fo r 6

an al y zi ng whe th er a Fo ur th Am en dm en t se arch oc cu rred

. The pr op ert y -ri gh ts
pa rad ig m is la rg el y ba se d on th e “ tre sp as s te st .” Und er th is te st , a Fo ur th Am en dm en t

-1 3-The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s th e go ve rn m en t fro m co nd uc ti ng

un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es

. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. It pr ov id es , in pe rti ne nt

pa rt: “ The rig ht of th e pe op le t o be se cu re in th ei r pe rs on s, ho us es , pa pe rs , an d
effe ct s, ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es , sh al l no t be vi ol at ed

. . . .” Id

. It
is well est ab li sh ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s a p ers on in hi s h om e an d p la ce 7
of bu si ne ss

. Se e Ma rs ha ll

v. Bar lo w’s , I

nc

. , 4 36 U.S. 3 07 , 3 12 (1 97 8) (co nc lu di ng , ba se d on th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s hi st or y , “ it is un te na bl e th at th e ba n on warra nt le ss

se arch es was no t in te nd ed to sh ie ld pl aces of bu si ne ss as well as of res id en ce”) ; G.M.
Lea si ng Co rp

. v. Uni te d St at es , 42 9 U.S. 33 8, 35 3 (19 77 ) (“ The res po nd en ts do no t

co nt en d th at bu si ne ss pr em is es are no t pro te ct ed by th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Such a
pr op os it io n co ul d no t be de fen de d in li gh t of th is Co ur t’s c l e a r h o ld in gs to th e

co nt rary.”); Se e v. Ci ty of Se at tl e , 38 7 U.S. 54 1, 54 6 (1 96 7) (“ W e ho ld on ly th at th e ba si c co m po ne nt of a reas on ab le se arch un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t— th at it no t be

en fo rce d w i t h o u t a su it ab le warra nt pr oc ed ur e—i s ap pl ic ab le in th is co nt ex t, as in

se arch oc cu rs whe n th e go ve rn m en t tre sp as se rs or “ p h ys i c a l l y in tru d[ es ] on a

co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed area .” Gra dy v. No rt h Ca ro li na , 1 35 S. Ct

. 13 68
, 13 70 (2 01 5) (p er cu ria m ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s , 56 5 U.S. 40 0, 40 6 n.3 (2 01 2) ). The di st ric t co ur t no te d: “ The pa rti es di d no t di sc us s whe th er th e se arch in tru de d on

a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed area un de r” Jo ne s , th us “ Azam m us t rel y on th e

reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy st an da rd .” Bec au se Azam do es no t pu t fo rth an y arg um en t ch al le ng in g th is de te rm in at io n, he ha s waiv ed ap pe ll at e re v i e w o f hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m un de r th e pr op ert y -ri gh ts pa rad ig m

. Se e Ch ay -Vel as qu ez v. Ash cr of

t , 36 7 F .3d 75 1, 7 56 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

Azam co nc ed es he ne ve r li ve d in an y of th e ren ta l pr op ert ie s at is su e he re. W e 7 th eref or e co nc lu de Azam is no t en ti tl ed to th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io ns affo rd ed a pe rs on in hi s or he r ho m e. Se e Flo ri da v. Ja rd in es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 14 09
, 14 14 (2 01 3) (“ At th e [Fo ur th ] Am en dm en t’s ‘very co re’ st an ds ‘the rig ht of a m an to ret reat i n to hi s own ho m e an d th ere be free fro m un reas on ab le go ve rn m en ta l in tru si on .’” (q uo ti ng Si lv er man v. Uni te d S ta te s , 36 5 U.S. 5 05 , 51 1 (1 96 1) ).

-1 4-ot he rs , to bu si ne ss as well as to res id en ti al pr em is es .”); se e al so Mic hi ga n v. Cl if fo rd

, 46 4 U.S. 2 87 , 29 1– 92 (19 84 ) (“ Exc ep t in cert ai n caref ul ly defi ne d c la ss es of c as es , th e no nc on se ns ua l en try an d se arch of pr op ert y i s g o ve rn ed by th e warra nt

req ui rem en t of th e Fo ur th

. . . Am en dm en t[].” (fo ot no te om itt ed )) ; Don ov an v. Dewey
, 45 2 U.S

. 5 9 4
, 59 8 (1 98 1) (“ [T]he Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t

un reas on ab le se arch es ap pl ie s to ad m in is tra ti ve in sp ect io ns o f pr iv at e co m m erci al

pr op ert y .”).

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s in te rp ret ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t a s pr os cri bi ng

un reas on ab le se arch es th at in tru de up on a pers on’ s re ason ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy. Bon d v. Uni te d St at es , 52 9 U.S. 33 4, 33 8– 39 (2 00 0) ; se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s , 56 5
U.S. 40 0, 40 6 (2 01 2) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. DE L’Is le

, 82 5 F.3 d 42 6, 43 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). U n de r th is te st , a pa rty as se rti ng a vi ol at io n of hi s or he r reas on ab le

ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy m us t sh ow bo th : 1) “ an act ua l (s ub jecti ve ) ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy,” an d 2) “ th at th e ex pe ct at io n [is ] on e th at so ci et y is pr ep ared to reco gn iz e as ‘reaso na bl e.’” DE L’Is le

, 82 5 F.3 d at 43 1 (al te rat io n in o r i g i n a l) (q uo ti ng Ka tz v. Uni te d St at es , 38 9 U.S. 34 7, 36 0 (1 96 7) (Harl an , J., co nc ur rin g) ); ac co rd Bon d

, 52 9
U.S. at 33 8. Bas ed on th e reas on ab le -ex pe ct at io n- of -p riv acy te st , t h is Co ur t he ld a

res id en t of an ap art m en t bu il di ng di d no t ha ve a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in
th e co m m on area s, in cl ud in g th e ha ll way s, of th e bu il di ng

. Uni te d St at es v. Ei sl er , 56 7 F.2 d 81 4, 81 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. McGra ne , 74 6 F.2 d 63 2,
63 4– 35 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (h ol di ng th e de fen da nt di d no t ha ve a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in hi s st or ag e lo ck er, ke pt in th e ba se m en t of hi s ap art m en t bu il di ng , th at

was acce ss ib le to th e bu il di ng ’s res id en ts an d la nd lo rd ). Our si st er ci rcu it s si m il arl y he ld , u nd er an al og o u s f

a c t pa tt ern s, th at no su ch reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy

e x i s te d. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Co rr ea , 65 3 F.3 d 18 7, 19 0– 91 (3 d Ci r. 20 1 1 ) ; Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Vil le

ga s , 49 5 F.3 d 76 1, 76 7– 69 (7 th Ci r. 20 07 ); Uni te d St at es v. Di l l a rd

, 43 8 F.3 d 67 5, 68 2– 83 (6 th Ci r. 20 06 ); Uni te d St at es v. Rami re z , 14 5 F. App ’x 91 5, 92 2

– 2 3 ( 5 t h Ci r. 20 05 ); Uni te d St at es v. Mir av al le s , 28 0 F.3 d 13 28
, 13 31 –3 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Haw ki ns , 13 9 F.3 d 29
, 32 –3 3 (1 st Ci r.

-1 5-19 98 ); Uni te d St at es v. No ha ra , 3 F.3 d 12 39
, 12 41 –4 2 (9 th Ci r. 19 93 ); Uni te d St at es

v. Bar ri os -Mo ri er a , 87 2 F.2 d 12
, 14 –1 5 (2 d Ci r. 19 89 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Hor to n v . Cal if

or ni a , 49 6 U.S. 1 28 (19 90 ).

Thi s Co ur t ha s no t ha d oc cas io n to de te rm in e whe th er an own er or la nd lo rd of

a m ul ti -u ni t dwe ll in g ha s a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in t h e co m m on

area s— in cl u d i ng th e in te rio r ha ll way s an d la un dr y ro om s— of th e dwe ll in g. W e

co nc lu de Azam di d no t ha ve a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e co m m on area s of hi s ren ta l bu il di ng s be cau se he di d no t m ai nt ai n a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy
reg ard in g in fo rm at io n in th es e area s, no r w o u l d an y su ch ex pe ct at io n ha ve be en ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e.

Fi rs t, Azam di d no t de m on st rat e h e h ad a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy
reg ard in g in fo rm at io n wit hi n th e co m m on area s of hi s ren t a l bu il di ng s. Alt ho ug h
Azam own ed th e ren ta l bu il di ng s, he has no t po si te d su ffi ci en t fact s to de m on st rat e he ha d an act ua l, su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy i n t h e c o mm on area s of hi s bu il di ng s. Se e, e.g

. , Dow Ch em. Co

. v. Uni te d St at es , 47 6 U.S. 22 7, 23 7 & n.4 (1 98 6) (d is c u s s i n g th e al le ge d fact s pu rp or te dl y ev in ci ng a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy); Ca li

fo rn ia v. Ci ra ol o , 47 6 U.S. 2 07 , 21 1– 12 (19 86 ) (s am e). T he co m m on

area s to th es e ren ta l bu il di ng s were be hi nd do or s wit h l o c k s

. B u t A zam do es no t

as se rt h e us ed th e lo ck ed do or s to sa feg ua rd cert ai n in ti m at e in fo rm at io n fro m “ th e in tru di ng ey e

. . . [o r] th e u n i n v i t e d ear.” Ka tz , 38 9 U.S. at 35 2; cf

. McGra ne , 74 6
F.2 d at 63 4– 35

. Azam th eref or e ha s no t de m on st rat ed he ha d a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pri va cy

.

Seco nd

, ev en as su m in g Azam ha d a su bje ct ive ex pe ct at ion of pr iva cy re ga rd in g in fo rm at io n ex po se d in th e co m m on area s of hi s ren ta l pr op ert ie s, th at ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy wou ld no t ha ve be en ob jectivel y reas on ab le

. The co m m on area s in each ren ta l
bu il di ng were acce ss ib le an d av ai la bl e to th at bu il di ng ’s res id en ts , th e res id en ts ’

gu es ts , an y of Azam ’s ag en ts , an d ot he rs le ga ll y pa ss in g th ro ug h wit h an ex pr es s or

-1 6-im

pl ic it li cen se (e.g

., can va ss ers , so li ci to rs , m ai l-c arri ers , an d m or e). Se e Flo ri da v. Ja rd in es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 14 09
, 14 15 (2 01 3)

. Th e r efo re, an y su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy reg ard in g in fo rma t i o n in th e co m m on area s th at Azam so ug ht to ke ep
pr iv at e—r el ev an t he re, ev id en ce of m un ic ip al -co de vi ol at io ns —would not have be en ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

. So ci et y wou ld no t be w i l l i n g to en do rs e as ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le Azam ’s pu rp or te d pr iv acy in te res t in th e ren ta l bu il di ng s’ co m m on area s, hi gh -tr affi c area s th at , ba se d on th e reco rd

, Azam di d li tt le to pr ot ect or ov ers ee. Thi s Co ur t al read y co nc lu de d a te na nt of an ap art m en t bu il di ng di d no t ha ve a reas on ab le

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e co m m on area s of th e bu il di ng

. Se e, e.g

. , McGra ne , 74 6

F

. 2 d at 63 4– 35 ; Eis le r , 56 7 F.2 d at 81 6. W e si m il arl y co nc lu de an y su bjec ti ve

e xp ect at io n Azam co ul d ha ve de m on st rat ed wou ld no t ha ve be en ob jecti v e l y

reas on ab le

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 7-