Dwelling Located at 728 Belmont Ave., Charlotte, In re, 7426SC746
| Docket Nº | No. 7426SC746 |
| Citation | 210 S.E.2d 73, 24 N.C.App. 17 |
| Case Date | November 25, 1974 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Page 73
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, and owned by Double
Triangle Properties, Inc.
Lindsey, Schrimsher, Erwin & Bernhardt by Lawrence W. Hewitt, for petitioner appellant.
City Atty. W. A. Watts, Charlotte, for respondent appellee.
City of Greensboro by City Atty. Jesse L. Warren, Greensboro, and Asst. City Atty. Dale Shepherd, and Legal Aid Society of Mecklenburg County by Terence Roche, Charlotte, amici curiae.
BALEY, Judge.
Does an administrative search or inspection by municipal authorities for detection of violations of a housing code, conducted without a warrant and without permission of the owner of the dwelling house, violate the owner's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search when the tenant-occupant consents to such search? The trial court has determined that it does not, and we agree.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or Affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
The protection afforded by this amendment is against Unreasonable searches and seizures. 'The immunity to unreasonable searches and seizures is a privilege personal to those whose rights thereunder have been infringed. They alone may invoke it against illegal searches and seizures.' State v. Craddock, 272 N.C. 160, 169, 158 S.E.2d 25, 32; Accord, State v. Ray, 274 N.C. 556, 164 S.E.2d 457; State v. McPeak, 243 N.C. 243, 90 [24 N.C.App. 22] S.E.2d 501. Only the person whose privacy is invaded by a search has standing to object or to consent to such a search. Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). See also Annot., 78 A.L.R.2d 246 (1961); Annot., 31 A.L.R.2d 1078 (1953).
In this case the petitioner surrendered its right to possession of the dwelling by renting it to the tenant, Mrs. Geiger, who was actually occupying the premises. Any intrusion for a search would be a violation of the tenant's right to privacy. Mrs. Geiger was in lawful possession of the dwelling. Clearly she could have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. McCready, No. 60524-6
...of rented premises. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). See also In re 728 Belmont Avenue, 24 N.C.App. 17, 210 S.E.2d 73, 77 (1974) (Camara Page 305 "gives rise to the clear implication that the Supreme Court considered the Fourth Amendment privile......
-
Heilman v. Heilman, No. 7410DC772
...testimony of the defendant, clearly establishes that plaintiff brought their cohabitation to an end 'without the consent of the other [24 N.C.App. 17] spouse' and 'without the intent of renewing it'. The remaining question is whether plaintiff's departure was justified. Plaintiff alleged an......
-
State v. 6635 N. 19TH Ave., Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0550
...interest in leased premises, they may consent to search despite landlord's objection); In re Dwelling Located at 728 Belmont Ave., 210 S.E.2d 73, 76-77 (N.C. App. 1974) (discussing that tenants in possession and control of leased premises have rights superior to landlord); cf. State v. Luce......
-
State v. Reagan, Nos. 75CR10737 and 75CR12498
...to a search of premises." G.S. 15A-222(3). A tenant in possession of the premises is such a person. In re Dwelling of Properties, Inc., 24 N.C.App. 17, 210 S.E.2d 73 (1974). The evidence in this case shows that Smith was a tenant in possession of the barn owned by defendant William Reagan a......
-
City of Seattle v. McCready, 60524-6
...of rented premises. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). See also In re 728 Belmont Avenue, 24 N.C.App. 17, 210 S.E.2d 73, 77 (1974) (Camara Page 305 "gives rise to the clear implication that the Supreme Court considered the Fourth Amendment privile......
-
Heilman v. Heilman, 7410DC772
...testimony of the defendant, clearly establishes that plaintiff brought their cohabitation to an end 'without the consent of the other [24 N.C.App. 17] spouse' and 'without the intent of renewing it'. The remaining question is whether plaintiff's departure was justified. Plaintiff alleged an......
-
State v. 6635 N. 19TH Ave., Inc., 1 CA-CV 15-0550
...interest in leased premises, they may consent to search despite landlord's objection); In re Dwelling Located at 728 Belmont Ave., 210 S.E.2d 73, 76-77 (N.C. App. 1974) (discussing that tenants in possession and control of leased premises have rights superior to landlord); cf. State v. Luce......
-
State v. Reagan, s. 75CR10737 and 75CR12498
...to a search of premises." G.S. 15A-222(3). A tenant in possession of the premises is such a person. In re Dwelling of Properties, Inc., 24 N.C.App. 17, 210 S.E.2d 73 (1974). The evidence in this case shows that Smith was a tenant in possession of the barn owned by defendant William Reagan a......