Evening star., 1949-01-04
D. {. TO Appeal
Warrant Ru|inq
InHea|th Checks
New Requirement for
Inspecting Homes
Seen as Handicap

Seen QS 7onQlCop
The District has moved to appea
a recent decision by the Municipa
Court of Appeals which would re.
quire health officers, making routine
inspections, to obtain search war
rants where home owners refuse
them admittance, it was Learned
today.
Corporation Counsel Vernon West
revealed that his Office filed applica
ton for allowance of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals
last Friday. He said it would be
possibly month before he will learn
whether the court will act on the
lower court ruling.
The case involves Mrs. Geraldine
Little, who last year was convicted
by Municipal Court Judge John P
Mcmahon on a charge that she
torclbly prevented a health officer
to check a complaint that garbage
Uttered hallway of her home in
the 1900 block of Tenth street NV
The lower Court of Appeals, in g
unanimous decision, disagreed with
Judge Mcmahon that a District
health officer does not need search
warrant to enter and inspect pri-
vate home for the protection OF
public health and comfort"
Waived for Emergency.
Appellate Judge Brice Clagett
wrote that health officers cannot
inspect, when challenged, without
the usual and ordinary preliminary
steps for search" unless there exists
such urgency or immediate danger
as to approve a total waiver of these
projections. An existing OF
threatened epidemic" would be such
danger. the court indicated.
Principal objection to this inter-
probation was set off by the Health
Department.
William H. Cary, jr., director OF
the bureau of public health en-
gineering of the Health Department,
today declared the problem of in
spections would become staggering"
should an appreciable number of
home owners suddenly challenge the
right of officers to make routine
checks.
Mr.. Cary cited these figures on the
number of inspections during 1947:
First inspections, 24626; REIN
spections, 34.786, and calls. such as
inquiries and serving notices, 1879.
The total kinds numbered 1928.
Cites Prevention Duty.
"You can see the difficulty our
health problem would become if
from $4,000 to $1,000 citizens each
year decided to force us to get
search warrants before we could
determine whether the public health
were threatened" he declared.
On the leeway granted by the
appellate court ruling in cases in
volving the danger of epidemics,
Mr.. Cary emphasized the Health
Department cant" wait for cpl
denies to start
ITS our duty to move before such
conditions arise" the official said,
adding that constant preventative
checks throughout the city are the
principal means of protecting the
public health.
Mr.. West said the main question,
as he saw it, in the appellate court
decision, was whether an ordinary
search warrant would apply in
health inspection cases.
I've never heard of an inSpec-
ton warrant and as I see it a
search warrant is used in the seizure
OF evidence of a crime or illegal
property" the Districts chief legal
officer declared.
Other Complications Seen.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Edward Beard, assigned to the Gov
ernment's brief with Chester Gray,
pointed out that if the Municipal
Appeals Court decision stands it will
affect adversely" inspections by
fire marshals checking reports OF
combustible materials in homes;
proceedings in the condemnation of
insanitary buildings; checks on
faulty plumbing; rodent control and
other types of insanitary conditions
threatening the health and COM
fort" of individuals and the COM
munity.
The whole question. Mr. Beard
declared, is whether a citizen has
the right to resist an inspection
claiming protection of the fourth
amendment, or whether the Dis
trict, pursuant to police powers
granted the Commissioners by Con-
gress in 1892, can make such inspec-
tons unhindered.
The regulation setting a maxi
mum penalty of a s45 fine for
interfering with or preventing" any
inspection has been in effect here
since 1922. Mr. Beard added.