Opinion ID: 2613356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Federal Constitution: Validity of the Warrant Under the Fourth Amendment

Text: Appellants also claim the warrant violated their Fourth Amendment rights because it was too broad in scope, was unsupported by probable cause, and was issued ex parte. All three arguments are unpersuasive. The warrant was not too broad in scope. The challenged warrant authorized the inspection of 1737 Belmont. Appellants claim the warrant is invalid because it did not specify the particular apartments to be inspected. Yet there is no evidence the City sought this warrant to gain access to individual apartment units. That the warrant authorized only the inspection of common areas is implicit in its general language, and is attested by the facts of this case: the City did not rely on the warrant to enter individual apartments without tenant consent. Contrary to the Appellants' contention, the warrant was supported by probable cause. The warrant application for 1737 Belmont Avenue was based on a declaration of Matthew Moeller, a housing and zoning inspector for the Department of Construction and Land Use of the City of Seattle. See Application for Warrant; Clerk's Papers, at 350-51. He personally observed housing code violations on the exterior of the building, including deteriorated rear stair assembly, exposed electrical wiring, and broken windows. Declaration of Matthew Moeller; Clerk's Papers, at 353. This evidence reasonably suggested the building was being inadequately maintained. It therefore supported the issuance of a warrant to inspect the interior common areas for signs of similar violations. [9] Finally, the authority cited by Appellants for the proposition administrative search warrants may not be issued ex parte is inapposite. See Br. of Appellants, at 25-26 (citing Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 18 L.Ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727 (1967); See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S.Ct. 1737 (1966)). Unlike the inspections challenged here, both Camara and See involved administrative searches conducted in the absence of either consent or a warrant. Because the Appellants have failed to establish a violation of their federal constitutional rights, they are not entitled to damages or attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988. The validity of the inspections conducted pursuant to tenant consent is affirmed; the inspection warrant issued by the Municipal Court is quashed because it was issued without the authority of law required by article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. ANDERSEN, C.J., and BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, DURHAM, SMITH, GUY, and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. Reconsideration denied October 31, 1994.