Skip to comments.Donít Renters Have Fourth Amendment Rights?
Posted on 12/30/2012 10:41:47 AM PST by redreno
A persons home is his castle and thus affords certain protections and immunitiesincluding the right to exclude unwanted visitorsthat apply whether you own or rent. Unfortunately, ordinances authorizing general administrative searches of rental properties have been increasingly adopted by local authorities with little protection for property rights or privacy interests.
These inspections cover the whole of the buildings and all of the activity that occurs within, opening every aspect of peoples lives to the government: political and religious affiliations, intimate relationships, and even all those Justin Bieber posters and Fifty Shades of Gray books you hide when people come over. They take place even if both the landlord and tenant believe them not to be necessary!
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
Hm, the government more and more disregards the 4th Amendment — the sad thing is that so many justify these unlawful violations, saying they make us safer. [TSA being a prime example.]
Anyone who has purchased a home is regarded as having a number of inviolate rights. In a sense, so has the person who has rented the use of a property for a term. If the renter is fulfilling the terms of that rental agreement, i.e., not using the property for illegal purposes, is current in payment of rental due, and does due diligence and vigilance in the maintenance of the property during his tenancy, has, or should have, essentially the same inviolate rights. As the “bundle of rights” that supposedly adhere to the property are partly shared with the holder of title to the property, some of the rights are either bartered away as part of the rental agreement, or are by nature not transferred to the renter, in that the renter cannot put the property up for security in any financial transaction, but is likewise not responsible for payment of any liens that may have been incurred against the title of the property.
I know, “MEGO” - mine eyes glaze over. This may be WAY more information than anybody asked for, but does the “castle doctrine” apply on rental property”? The short answer is “Yes, but...”
If renting, I wouldn’t expect any real or absolute 4th amendment protections within my ‘home’. Obviously, the land lord can enter the place any time he likes, and he can give others permission to enter as well.
If you have a mortgage, can someone from your bank enter your house?
That is simply not true. The owner must notify you when he plans to enter or have someone enter on his behalf.
^^^ If you have a mortgage, can someone from your bank enter your house? ^^^
If you have a mortgage, are you really the owner?
I don't know how the laws are in the East but out here in the West landlords have to give you 24 hrs. notice if they want to enter your home for any reason other than an emergency. Even then he has to have a valid reason, minor repairs, upgrades etc.
Any others he gives permission to must be in his accompaniment.
Renters do have the same 4th Amendment protections as a home owner. Unless specified in a rental contract, the right to privacy also includes turning away the owner of the house or their agents.
My understanding as a general matter is that renters have the same 4th Amendment protections as owners, i.e., have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their living quarters which prevents a search in the absence of a court-issued warrant. However, I don’t believe a guest in the premises regardless of how long they’ve been staying is afforded that protection. For example, a parent who owns (or rents) the house can consent to police to have a child’s room searched.
Everybody else treats renters like trash, no reason the government shouldn’t....
I know that in some of the apartments that I lived in, the usual way they got to “look around” was when it was time to bug spray. You had no choice but to accept it.
“If you have a mortgage, are you really the owner?”
Legally yes - the mortgage company (i.e., federal government these days) only has a lien on it. The title of the property is in your name.
Of course, try not paying your mortgage and see who, in the real world, owns it.
If you have a contract that specifies the time and date of a visit or search by the owner, then that is contractual. However, I don't know in other cases.
There has been a recent similar issue. Loss protection personnel go through your bags and such at stores. Dunno the legal recourse of that, but I suspect you 'entered' in agreement of that type of contract when you entered the store.
Even if you "own" and have no mortgage, you are not in charge. Try not paying your property taxes or your sewer and garbage bills or your homeowners association dues and find out what happens.
“Loss protection personnel go through your bags and such at stores. Dunno the legal recourse of that, but I suspect you ‘entered’ in agreement of that type of contract when you entered the store.”
You do have the choice of not going to that store if it bothers you. Government wearying your home, not so much.
“wearying” = searching. ;(
Yep, at least until foreclosure starts or if you have no taxes in arrears or outstanding liens.
“...Justin Bieber posters...”
Those people deserve a special kind of ridicule.
The problem with all this is, the law does not enforce itself. Yes, you have owners’ rights as a tenant...on paper. Just like almost every other law on the books...there oughta be a law. Well, there is. It’s just not enforced, and it is up to the aggrieved party to undertake his/her remedy. When I was a property owner and rented it/them out, I was pretty religious when it came to observing my tenants’ rights and I treated them as I would want to be treated. But that’s just me.
The law does not enforce itself.
^^^ If you have a mortgage, can someone from your bank enter your house? ^^^
>> If you have a mortgage, are you really the owner?
If your real estate can be alienated from you for nonpayment of property taxes, are you really the owner?
No, you can refuse that too. I never allowed the exterminator in when I had cats.
“No, you can refuse that too. I never allowed the exterminator in when I had cats.”
Good to know that...I semi-own now (i.e., still a mortgage, and always property taxes).
Seem to recall a recent SCOTUS ruling that says otherwise.
Unless its a membership store where you signed that option away, you can refuse loss prevention inspections. The store can in turn ask you never to come back to that store or the entire chain.
I have seen too many buffoons in loss prevention to have much respect for them. I have cost several their jobs over time and injured a couple.
Well.. technically, thanks to the overbearing govt.. we don’t even ‘own’ the property we paid for... we still have to pay taxes on something we already own :/
they do, but when they enter into a renter’s contract, they agree to be bound to the terms of the rental agreement. there are well established reasonable standards of what can and can’t be in a rental contract and it varies state to state. further if the building owners believe there’s risk of damage to their property, or illegal activity going on, they have rights as well.
bank - no. they don’t have keys and breaking in would be illegal.
How about eminent domain action filed by anyone with more money or political connections than the property owner?
The government treats everybody like trash.
wearying = searching. ;(
Either one works. The government wearies me whenever its agents & employees show up; it may well weary my home, too, to have them in or about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.