Opinion ID: 4536868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: City of Lancaster’s Code Enforcement Efforts

Text: In October 2017, the City of Lancaster, California, Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, began investigating defendant Grey for possible violations of the City of Lancaster Municipal Code. The investigation primarily focused on complaints from neighbors that Grey’s property was “surrounded by tarps,” that there was “a camera mounted on a 30-foot pole” and numerous lights on the roof of the house, and that there was “electrical wiring along the fence, which they were concerned meant the fence itself was electrified.” The neighbors also suspected that Grey “was conducting an unlawful auto repair business at the property.” In November 2017, City of Lancaster Code Enforcement Officer Sam McNutt viewed Grey’s property from the street and confirmed that “tarps surrounded the premises and covered much of the roof” and that “areas of fences/walls exceed the permissible height.” McNutt was unable to observe most of the premises because the tarps and other materials obstructed a clear view. McNutt did not determine whether the electrical wiring along the fence was there to electrify the fence or to provide power for another purpose. McNutt also spoke with Grey at some point in November 2017, but was unable to elicit Grey’s cooperation in 1 We ordinarily review a district court’s factual findings for clear error. Because, however, the government does not challenge the district court’s factual findings for purposes of this appeal, we recite the facts as determined by the district court. See United States v. Grey, No. CR 180412-CAS, 2018 WL 4403979, at –7 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 13, 2018). UNITED STATES V. GREY 5 correcting the alleged code violations. Grey did not respond to McNutt’s attempts to contact him after their initial conversation. McNutt also spoke to the property owner, who said she had spoken with her tenant, Grey, and that he had refused to make the corrections that were needed to bring the property into compliance. In January 2018, McNutt returned to inspect Grey’s property from the street. Based on his observations, McNutt issued administrative citations to Grey on February 1 and March 2, 2018. Grey appealed the citations on March 12, 2018, and then made “continuous” phone calls and faxes to the City Clerk’s office. Code Enforcement personnel expressed safety-related concerns about returning to the property due to Grey’s multiple calls and faxes to the City Clerk’s office and the electrical wiring along his fence. In March 2018, Grey’s code enforcement case was referred to Russell Bailey. Bailey is a reserve (part-time) deputy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”). He had served as a deputy with the LASD for 38 years before becoming a managing member of a private consulting firm in 2017. Bailey’s consulting firm has contracted with the City of Lancaster “to provide municipal compliance services related to quality-of-life issues” and “to provide general municipal code enforcement services.” Bailey stated that his work for the City of Lancaster was not as a law enforcement officer. On March 15, 2018, Bailey and Mike Kuper, another reserve LASD deputy and contractor, went to Grey’s property at the request of the City of Lancaster Public Safety Director, Lee D’Errico. D’Errico told Bailey that the City had received a complaint from Grey’s neighbor that Grey had electrified 6 UNITED STATES V. GREY his fence. Upon arriving at Grey’s property, Bailey saw a six-foot-high chain link fence surrounding the premises, tarps attached to the fence that obstructed the view of the property from the public right-of-way, a large canopy-type structure covering the driveway, a long pole extending from the roof of the residence with a video camera and a large light installed on top, and an electrical wire running along the top of the fence. Bailey and Kuper tested the fence and determined that it was not electrified. During this March 15 inspection, Bailey went to Grey’s property and spoke with Grey from outside the fence through a small hole in the tarp. Bailey identified himself and told Grey that he had come to talk about the fence. Grey told Bailey that he had “fortified” his residence because his neighbor had constantly harassed, intimidated, and threatened him, and that before erecting the fence, his neighbor had shot at his dogs with a pellet gun and his car had been vandalized. Grey also stated that the wire along the fence was connected to an audio alarm device inside his house. Bailey told Grey that the height and condition of the fence appeared to be a violation of the Lancaster Municipal Code and would need to be corrected. During this conversation, Bailey also observed three cars parked in Grey’s yard, including on unpaved portions of the premises. Bailey believed that the presence of the cars corroborated the neighbors’ complaints that Grey was operating an unlawful auto repair business on the property. After their conversation with Grey, Bailey and Kuper drove to the rear of the property and observed a large tarp that had been installed such that vision into the rear yard was entirely obstructed. Bailey also took photos of the property documenting the fencing, tarps, canopy, and camera. UNITED STATES V. GREY 7 Based on his conversation with Grey, including Grey’s statement about “fortifying” his house, and his observations of Grey’s demeanor, Bailey believed that Grey would not agree to abate the conditions on his property and that Grey could pose a threat to City of Lancaster Code Enforcement officers. Bailey asked another LASD deputy about Grey, and that deputy told Bailey that LASD was already aware of Grey and had received several calls about his property, including about firearms being shot into the air. Bailey then met with D’Errico, Kuper and City of Lancaster Assistant City Attorney Jocelyn Corbett. During that meeting, Bailey learned that Grey’s case had been turned over to Bailey by the Code Enforcement team because of a concern for the team’s safety. As a result of this conversation, Bailey, Corbett, and D’Errico decided that an inspection was necessary to determine if the property was safe and what further action was needed.