Opinion ID: 4536868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Administrative Inspection Warrant

Text: Assistant City Attorney Corbett said that she decided to seek an inspection warrant for Grey’s property in late March 2018 because she thought it “was necessary to get behind the tarps and other code-violating obstructions and see if there were additional violations inside the house, particularly with respect to obstructions for first responders.” On April 10, 2018, during an event at Lancaster City Hall, Corbett had a UNITED STATES V. GREY 11 brief discussion with an LASD deputy and D’Errico about Grey’s property and Corbett informed them that she was going to obtain a warrant for that property. Also around this time, Deputy Chappell told Sergeant Wolanski that the City was going to apply for an inspection warrant for Grey’s property and that the City had asked LASD to help with security at the inspection because of “the way that the property was situated” and “defendant’s suspected involvement with guns.” In late April, Corbett helped Bailey draft the warrant affidavit. On May 1, 2018, the City filed an application for an inspection warrant supported by Bailey’s affidavit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In the warrant affidavit, Bailey detailed the City’s investigation into Grey’s alleged Lancaster Municipal Code violations beginning in October 2017. Based on Bailey’s inspection on March 15, 2018, the affidavit asserted the following violations of the Lancaster Municipal Code: (1) maintenance of tarps or similar coverings on, or over, any roof of any structure, except during periods of active rainfall; (2) vehicles parked or stored on unpaved portions of the premises; and (3) fences that exceed the height allowances. Bailey also stated that due to the obstructions, it was not possible to determine whether the tarps, canopies, and other structures and coverings hindered egress from the residence in the event of a fire or emergency, which would violate the municipal code. Bailey concluded that this would “pose a very serious life safety hazard to the tenant and to emergency responders.” Bailey also concluded that the conditions on Grey’s premises violated the Lancaster Municipal Code provision that prohibits any condition that constitutes a public 12 UNITED STATES V. GREY nuisance, blight, or a health or safety hazard to the community or neighboring properties. Bailey also stated his belief that Grey would not cooperate with any effort to bring his property into compliance with the municipal code and that it may be necessary for the City to undertake abatement actions to eliminate the violations. In his affidavit, Bailey stated: “In order to ascertain the extent to which unlawful and potentially hazardous conditions are present, and in order to determine the scope of abatement actions that the City may need to undertake, it is necessary for the City to conduct a comprehensive inspection of the premises and residence.” Bailey requested an inspection warrant “to authorize [himself] and City and County personnel to enter the premises and to inspect and photograph all yard areas as well as the interior areas of all structures, to assess the extent to which hazardous conditions are present, and to ascertain what abatement actions may be necessary to eliminate such conditions and bring the property into substantial compliance with the Lancaster Municipal Code.” In his affidavit, Bailey also sought: (1) the assistance of LASD Deputies “to ensure that interference with same does not occur”; (2) exemption from the 24-hour advance notice requirement of the issuance of the warrant because of the concern that Grey “may react inappropriately or violently” upon learning of the warrant; (3) authorization to execute the warrant in the absence of Grey, if he is absent; and (4) authorization to forcibly enter yard areas on the premises and the dwelling, if Grey refused access because “it is unknown whether personnel executing the Warrant may be in UNITED STATES V. GREY 13 jeopardy” as “it cannot be determined whether other persons live in the residence, and in light of Grey’s odd behavior and comments it is not known whether he may have undertaken additional ‘fortifications’ in the yard areas or inside the house.” Later that same day, the Los Angeles County Superior Court found cause to believe that municipal code violations “exist, or may exist,” at Grey’s property and issued the warrant. The warrant authorized the City to “make an inspection of the interior and exterior areas of all structures” and granted all of the additional requests made in Bailey’s affidavit, including the assistance of LASD deputies in the execution of the warrant, waiver of the 24-hour advance notice requirement, and permission to forcibly enter the yard areas and dwelling.