Source: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2002/2002-016.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:46:23+00:00

Document:
Because a subsequently enacted ordinance excepts group homes and adult care homes from the provisions of City of Lawrence Ordinance No. 7326, the ordinance is not a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act's prohibition on housing discrimination based on disability. Moreover, the definition of "family" in the Lawrence ordinance does not limit the number of persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, guardianship or any other legally authorized custodial relationship who may reside in single family residences and, therefore, does not otherwise run afoul of the Federal Fair Housing Act.
The guidelines stated in Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, City of Overland Park v. Niewald and Board of County Comm'rs of Johnson County v. Grant will be applied in determining whether probable cause for an administrative search warrant has been established. Because a tenant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her dwelling, a tenant's consent or a warrant must be obtained prior to an attempt to gain access to inspect the tenant's residence. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-736, 12-16,123; U.S. Const., Amend. 4; 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, 3602, 3604, 3607.
You inquire regarding the legality of certain provisions of Ordinance No. 7326, enacted by the governing body of the City of Lawrence. Specifically, you inquire whether a provision that prohibits a non-occupying property owner from renting a single-family dwelling within a single-family residence district(1) to four or more unrelated individuals violates the Federal Fair Housing Act.(2) You also have concerns regarding provisions in the ordinance that address tenant lists and administrative search warrants.
"3. a group of not more than three (3) persons unrelated by blood, marriage, and their children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, motel, hotel, fraternity house or sorority house."
In City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc.,(5) the United States Supreme Court reviewed a similar zoning ordinance that limited the definition of "family" to certain related individuals and groups of five or fewer unrelated individuals. Oxford House, which operated a group home for recovering alcoholics, exceeded the maximum of five unrelated individuals and was issued a citation for violation of an ordinance restricting occupancy of single-family dwellings to "families." Conceding that recovering alcoholics are "handicapped persons" for purposes of the Federal Fair Housing Act, the City sued for a declaration that its restrictions were exempt from the Act's application.(6) The Court construed the Act's exemption for local regulations regarding maximum occupancy restrictions and concluded that the Act's exemption did not apply.(7) Therefore, the Federal Fair Housing Act will prohibit Ordinance No. 7326's rental restriction if such restriction operates to discriminate against persons with disabilities.
K.S.A. 12-736 prohibits municipalities from enacting zoning ordinances that prohibit group homes for the disabled from locating in residential districts. While it was not clear when Ordinance No. 7326 was enacted what impact, if any, the rental restriction would have on such group homes, the City governing body removed any doubt, on January 22, 2002, when it enacted Ordinance No. 7478. Ordinance No. 7478 clearly exempts group homes and adult care homes(8) from the rental restriction provision of Ordinance No. 7326. Therefore, it is our opinion that with the addition of Ordinance No. 7478, the Federal Fair Housing Act's prohibition on housing discrimination based on disability is not violated by Ordinance No. 7326.
The Federal Fair Housing Act also prohibits discrimination based upon "familial status,"(9) which means that a landlord cannot refuse to rent to a parent or person who has legal custody of a child.(10) The definition of "family" in Ordinance No. 7326 does not limit the number of persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, guardianship or any other legally authorized custodial relationship who may reside in single family residences and, therefore, does not run afoul of the Act.
Your concern regarding tenant lists is prompted by § 2 of Chapter 147 of the 2001 Session Laws,(11) which became effective on July 1, 2001. Section 2 generally prohibits municipalities from adopting ordinances that require landlords to provide the names of tenants to the municipality.(12) Our understanding is that Ordinance No. 7326, which required landlords to provide such lists to the City, was enacted prior to the effective date of the new law. The City has now rectified the matter by passing Ordinance No. 7478 providing that the City will abide by § 2 of Chapter 147 of the 2001 Session Laws.
Your final question evidences a concern with the inspection provisions of Ordinance No. 7326 and whether they pass muster under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In order to understand these provisions, it is necessary to review the ordinance.
"6-1304. The public officer shall establish a periodic schedule to provide for the inspection of the exterior and interior of each dwelling . . . [The] inspection shall be conducted at a minimum every three (3) years. As an alternative to City inspection, the City and the property owner may enter into an agreement providing for the private inspection of the property by a certified private inspector to ensure compliance.
In Board of County Comm'rs of Johnson County v. Grant,(24) the Court upheld an administrative search warrant designed to enforce a county resolution that authorized a code enforcement officer to inspect basements and storm water drainage facilities located in private residences. The Court reviewed the inspection provisions of the ordinance as well as a manual that detailed the inspection process. Applying Niewald's requirements of 'frequency, scope and manner,' the Court concluded that the inspection program was sufficient to support a probable cause determination.
"[From] a comparison of the property owners' contentions and the case law they rely on, it is evident that they have lost sight of the forest. Where the emphasis in case law lies in reasonableness and balancing public and private interests, the focus advocated by the property owners is narrowed to the three words used by the [Court of Appeals]-'frequency, scope and manner.' The [Court's] trilogy was intended to suggest concepts rather than to be an inflexible gauge.
Finally, with regard to whether a tenant's consent is required prior to an inspection, the law is clear that a tenant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her dwelling(28) and, therefore, a tenant's consent or a warrant must be obtained prior to an attempt to gain access.
1. In addition to single-family residence districts, the City also has multiple-family and duplex residential districts. The rental restriction provision applies only to single-family residence districts.
2. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
3. 42 U.S.C. § 3604.
5. 514 U.S. 725, 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801, (1995).
6. 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1) ("nothing in [the Federal Fair Housing Act] limits the applicability of any reasonable local . . . restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling").
7. The Court did not address whether the ordinance's definition of "family" violated the Act's prohibition against housing discrimination based on disability.
8. "Group home or adult care home" is defined in City ordinance as "any dwelling occupied by not more than 10 persons, including eight or fewer persons with disabilities who need not be related by blood or marriage and not to exceed two staff residents who need not be related by blood or marriage to each other or to the other residents of the home. . . ."
9. 42 U.S.C. § 3604.
10. 42 U.S.C. § 3602(k).
12. Section 2(c) does allow "a municipality [to] require a landlord to provide to the municipality a list of the names of tenants . . . if a citation for a violation of an ordinance . . . adopted to protect the public health, safety or welfare has occurred on such property."
13. Ordinance No. 7326, § 6-1306.
14. Ordinance No. 7326, § 6-1302.
15. Id. at § 6-1305. Violation of Ordinance No. 7326 may also entail prosecution in municipal court with a fine of between $250 and $1000 upon conviction.
16. Ordinance No. 7326, § 6-1305.
18. Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967); See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed. 2d 943 (1967); Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County v. Grant, 264 Kan. 58 (1998); City of Overland Park v. Niewald, 258 Kan. 679 (1995). See Siple v. City of Topeka, 235 Kan. 167, 173 (1984) (ordinances requiring inspections secure for the public at large the benefits of such enactments).
22. 258 Kan. 679 (1995).
23. Id. at 682 (citations omitted).
24. 264 Kan. 58 (1998).
26. Frequency of scheduled inspections, scope of inspection (i.e. the "exterior and interior of each dwelling"), entering at "reasonable times," presentation of credentials by the public officer, obtaining an administrative search warrant if entry is denied.
27. You cite the case of Black v. Village of Forest Park, 20 F.Supp.2d 1218 (N.D. Illinois, 1998), where a federal district court determined that an area inspection of rental homes did not satisfy Camara's requirement that there be "reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection," because multi-family dwellings were not subjected to annual inspections and there were no appropriate limits on the scope of the inspection. In the absence of information concerning the City of Lawrence's inspection program, we do not know whether the conclusion in the Black case is on point. Moreover, a Kansas court is not bound by judicial decisions from other jurisdictions.
28. Chapman v. United States of America, 365 U.S. 610, 81 S.Ct. 776, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961); Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990); United States v. Owens, 782 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1986).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 2
 v. 
 § 3604
 § 3607
 § 3604
 § 3602
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.