City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick

Decision Date19 July 2017
Docket NumberA15-1795
Parties In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, Respondent, v. Jason WIEBESICK, Appellant, Jacki Wiebesick, Appellant, Jessie Treseler, Appellant, Tiffani Simons, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Ashleigh M. Leitch, Allen D. Barnard, Thomas G. Garry, Best & Flanagan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Anthony B. Sanders, Meagan A. Forbes, Lee U. McGrath, Institute for Justice, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

Teresa Nelson, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.

Bennett Evan Cooper, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; William K. Forbes, Bolt Hoffer Boyd Law Firm, Anoka, Minnesota; and Kimberly Reynolds Crockett, Center of the American Experiment, Golden Valley, Minnesota, for amici curiae Center of the American Experiment, Cato Institute, and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Subbaraman PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Freedom Foundation of Minnesota.

Jessica Mikkelson, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae HOME Line.

John T. Sullivan, Angela M. Porter, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae InquilinXs UnidXs por Justicia.

Susan L. Naughton, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.

OPINION

LILLEHAUG, Justice.

For at least half a century, federal constitutional law has been clear: an administrative search warrant need not be supported by individualized suspicion of a code violation to justify an unconsented-to rental housing inspection. Camara v. Mun. Court , 387 U.S. 523, 538, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). Such an administrative warrant satisfies the probable cause requirement in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution "if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling." Id. Appellants invite us to be the first state supreme court to depart from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Camara and hold that Minnesota's constitution requires more: probable cause of the sort required in a criminal investigation. We decline their invitation and affirm the court of appeals. But we make clear that, to protect tenants' privacy interests, administrative search warrant procedures must include notice, an opportunity to be heard, and judicial consideration of reasonable restrictions on the inspection.

FACTS

The City of Golden Valley has a housing code that establishes minimum standards for rental housing and requires licenses for all residential rental properties. Golden Valley, Minn., City Code § 6.29, subds. 1, 4(A) (2015). The purpose of the code is to "safeguard life, limb, health, property and public welfare." Id. , subd. 1. Under the City's current policy, the City inspects rental properties for compliance with the city housing code once every 3 years. Cf. id. , subd. 4(E) (2015) ("The Code Official shall determine the schedule of periodic inspections."). As a condition for a rental license, the landlord agrees to permit inspections after "reasonable notice from the Code Official" to the landlord to "determine compliance with the City Code and state law." Id. , subd. 4(F) (2015). The city housing code also requires that the tenant grant access to the rental unit "at reasonable times" and "for the purpose of effecting inspection, maintenance, repairs or alterations" that are necessary to comply with the code. Id. The code states that inspections "include all common areas, utility and mechanical rooms, garages," and the exterior of the property. Id. , subd. 4(E).

Appellants Jason and Jacki Wiebesick (landlords) own a duplex in Golden Valley. The landlords resided in half of the dwelling, and appellants Tiffani Simons and Jessie Treseler (tenants) rented the other half at all times relevant to this appeal. In April 2015, the landlords applied to renew their rental license. The City granted the renewal and sent a letter to the landlords instructing them to call the City to schedule the triennial inspection as a requirement for maintaining their license. The City's letter informed the landlords that they must give the tenants at least 24 hours' notice of the inspection, and that the landlords or a representative were required to be on site during the inspection.

The landlords and the tenants sent a letter to the City in response, stating that they would not consent to an inspection on the ground that a search without a warrant based on individualized suspicion violates the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. The City, in return, petitioned the district court for an administrative search warrant to inspect the property for compliance with the code. See City Code § 6.29, subd. 4(F) ("If any Owner ... or Tenant fails or refuses to permit entry to a Rental Dwelling under its control for an inspection pursuant to this Section, the Code Official may pursue any remedy at law or under the City Code, including, but not limited to, securing an administrative search warrant for the Rental Dwelling...."). In its petition, the City noted that the purpose of the inspection was to determine compliance with the city housing code and to evaluate whether the rental unit conformed to "minimum mechanical and interior standards" for rental dwellings, "including but not limited to standards for: structural integrity; ventilation requirements for bathrooms and clothes dryers; size of bedrooms; adequate and properly installed kitchen sinks; proper installation, pressure, and temperature for water heating facilities; fireplaces; cooking appliances; lighting and electrical systems; and smoke detectors."

The district court scheduled a hearing on the City's petition. The landlords and the tenants were served with the City's petition and received notice of the hearing, but they did not attend or submit anything in writing. At the hearing, the district court inferred that the landlords and the tenants opposed any warrant issued without individualized suspicion of a code violation in the rental unit. The City acknowledged that it had no such individualized suspicion. The district court denied the petition for the administrative search warrant, reading our precedent to "foreclose issuance of a search warrant" without suspicion of a code violation.

The court of appeals reversed. Noting that our precedent did not resolve the issue, the court held that the Minnesota Constitution does not require individualized suspicion of a code violation to support an administrative search warrant for a rental housing inspection. City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , 881 N.W.2d 143, 145-46, 148 (Minn.App. 2016). We granted the landlords' and the tenants' petition for review.1

ANALYSIS

The primary issue on appeal is whether Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution requires probable cause of the sort needed in a criminal investigation for a warrant to inspect a rental unit for housing code violations. This question is one of constitutional interpretation, which we review de novo. State v. Brooks , 604 N.W.2d 345, 348 (Minn. 2000).2

The Fourth Amendment does not require a city to show individualized suspicion to obtain an administrative warrant for a routine rental housing inspection. Camara , 387 U.S. at 538, 87 S.Ct. 1727. Camara emphasized that, unlike criminal search warrants, probable cause for administrative warrants does not depend on specific knowledge of the conditions of the particular rental property to be inspected. Id. Instead, Camara authorized administrative search warrants to conduct housing inspections as long as "reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied." Id. These standards may be based on "the nature of the building," "the condition of the [ ] area," or "the passage of time." Id.

Camara is not dispositive here because we may interpret the Minnesota Constitution to provide greater protection to individuals than the United States Constitution. We are "independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of [Minnesota's] citizens." State v. Fuller , 374 N.W.2d 722, 726 (Minn. 1985) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court concluded that we had done just that in McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing , 831 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 2013), and read that decision to require individualized suspicion for administrative search warrants. The district court was not correct. In McCaughtry , we only assumed arguendo that individualized suspicion was required for an administrative search warrant under Article I, Section 10. Id. at 525. We concluded that we "need not decide the unsettled question of whether the Minnesota Constitution prohibits the issuance of an administrative warrant under the Red Wing Licensing Inspection ordinance absent some individualized suspicion of a housing code violation." Id. (emphasis added). We decide that question now.

I.

To analyze whether the Minnesota Constitution requires greater protection than the United States Constitution, we will employ the analytical framework set out in Kahn v. Griffin , 701 N.W.2d 815, 828 (Minn. 2005), because both parties rely on it to structure their arguments.3 We will not "cavalierly construe [the] state constitution more expansively" than the United States Constitution, id. at 825 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), nor will we reject a United States Supreme Court interpretation of the United States Constitution "merely because we want to bring about a different result," id. at 824. We favor uniformity with the federal constitution because of the "primacy of the federal constitution in matters affecting individual liberties" and to encourage consistency in constitutional law in state and federal courts. Id.

But we will depart from federal precedent when we have a "clear and strong conviction that there is a principled basis" to do...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • In re Interest of Y.W.-B.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • December 23, 2021
  • In re Y.W.-B.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • December 23, 2021
    ... ... 309 (1971) and ... Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County ... of San Francisco , 387 U.S. 523 (1967), DHS ... suspicion. See City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , ... 899 N.W.2d 152, 161 (Minn. 2017) ... ...
  • Cruz-Guzman v. State, A16-1265
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 25, 2018
    ...appellants' claims. This is an issue of constitutional interpretation that we review de novo. See City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , 899 N.W.2d 152, 156 (Minn. 2017).Our analysis begins with the text of the Minnesota Constitution. See 916 N.W.2d 13 League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie ......
  • Ninetieth Minn. State Senate v. Dayton
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 16, 2017
    ... ... ; and Kimberly Reynolds Crockett, Center of the American Experiment, Golden Valley, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Center of the American Experiment ... City of New York , 524 U.S. 417, 452, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) ... City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , 899 N.W.2d 152, 159 (Minn. 2017) (explaining that the 1974 amendments to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT