State v. Schaffel

• Decision Date: 16 December 1966
• Docket Number: No. CR,CR
• Citation: 229 A.2d 552,4 Conn.Cir.Ct. 234
• Court: Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Ivan M. SCHAFFEL. 6-31068.

Page 552

229 A.2d 552

4 Conn.Cir.Ct. 234

STATE of Connecticut v. Ivan M. SCHAFFEL.

No. CR 6-31068.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 12, 1966.

Decided Dec. 16, 1966.

Alfonse C. Fasano, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).

Herbert R. Scott, Sp. Asst. Pros. Atty., and Joseph B. Clark, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).

JACOBS, Judge.

The defendant is the owner of a tenement house building, as defined by § 19-342(1) of the General Statutes, erected some sixty years ago in the city of New Haven and still used as a tenement house. The building contains six separate apartments, three of which are located on the left-hand side of the building and are known as 25 Redfield Street, and three of which are located on the right-hand side of the building and are referred to as 23 Redfield Street. Each apartment is identical in size; each contains a living room, three bedrooms, a kitchen and a bathroom. The rental for a heated apartment is fixed by lease at $95 a month.

Sometime during the month of January, 1964, one of the tenants in the building, Pauline Byrd, who had leased an apartment from the defendant in September, 1963, at 25 Redfield Street, telephoned a complaint to the division of neighborhood improvement of the New Haven redevelopment agency concerning alleged violations in her apartment of the housing code of the city. Within a few days after the receipt of the complaint, Edward DeLouise, director of the division of neighborhood improvement and charged with the responsibility of enforcing the housing code in certain defined areas, within which the defendant's property fell, sent two accredited representatives of his office to inspect the apartment occupied by the Byrd family. After they had properly identified themselves and announced the purpose of their visit, they were admitted and made the inspection. A list of probable violations were noted. In March, 1964, Pauline Byrd called the division of neighborhood improvement and made another complaint. Again the inspectors were invited in and noted probable violations. The inspectors then proceeded to other apartments in the building and, after identifying themselves and their purpose, were invited to enter; again, they noted probable violations. They proceeded to make an inspection of the common hallways and stairways, noting probable violations thereon. The inspectors returned to the division of neighborhood improvement and filed their report with the director.

After reviewing the report, the director made a determination that there were probable grounds to believe that the defendant's property was in violation of the housing code. The probable violations were reduced to writing. The director, in an order dated September 18, 1964, notified the defendant by registered mail 'to undertake * * * remedial action for the correction of these violations. Such work to be completed by December 18, 1964.' The defendant failed to comply with the terms of the notice; he chose not to avail himself of a hearing before the code enforcement committee, where opportunity is afforded a person affected by such a notice to show cause why it should be modified, extended, withdrawn or varied. ¹ The defendant's noncompliance with the notice and failure to exhaust his administrative remedies left the director with no alternative but to refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney of the Circuit Court. Thereafter, the prosecuting attorney instituted criminal proceedings under the penalty provisions ( 102) of the code. The defendant, in a seven-count amended information, ² was charged with a variety of violations of the Housing Code of the city of New Haven. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts; the court, however, on motion, set aside the verdict as to the seventh count. Judgment was thereupon rendered on the verdict.

On appeal to the Appellate Division, the defendant has raised many questions; these may be reduced to five: (1) Whether the housing code is a valid exercise of the police power, that is, whether the standards of the code are arbitrary, unreasonable and unrelated to public health, safety and welfare; (2) whether the housing code is null and void because it delegates enforcing authority to the director of the division of neighborhood improvement of the New Haven redevelopment agency in substandard, middle ground and urban renewal areas rather than to the director of public health, who is made the enforcing officer under the code for other areas of the city; (3) whether the city of New Haven possesses authority to establish a monetary fine of $100 for a violation of the code; (4) whether the housing code is unconstitutional as ex post facto legislation; and (5) whether the defendant's fourth amendment rights to be secure in his home and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures constitute a bar to his conviction on the ground that evidence was obtained through an inspection of his premises at the request of his tenants over his objection.

An initial question we must decide is whether the housing code of the city of New Haven is a valid exercise of the power granted to municipalities under appropriate statutory authority. That there is a great need in this country for housing codes was recognized by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Frank v. State of Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 371, 79 S.Ct. 804, 811, 3 L.Ed.2d 877, where he put the problem in this way: 'The need to maintain basic, minimal standards of housing, to prevent the spread of disease and of that pervasive breakdown in the fiber of a people which is produced by slums and the absence of the barest essentials of civilized living, has mounted to a major concern of American government. The growth of cities, the crowding of populations, the increased awareness of the responsibility of the state for the living conditions of its citizens, all have combined to create problems of the enforcement of minimum standards * * *.' The need for legislation in this area of government does not stem only from public health; it is also a social and economic need. 'The toll exacted by slums and blight has been too frequently recorded. As if by rote, social workers, health officers, and public officials recite the fearful consequences in terms of blighted lives, disease, crime, juvenile delinquency, and hazards to health, safety and morals. The hard truth regarding these consequences, even when supported by cold statistics, may not penetrate the consciousness of one as effectively as an actual inspection of slums * * *. Equally disturbing to the tranquillity of the thinking citizen is the effect of urban blight on the economic life of the community. The spread of blight rapidly depreciates property values and at the same time imposes upon the city government more onerous burdens for the provision of municipal services and public facilities. The city's ability to finance these expanding needs is impaired by urban blight in that taxes are lowered as properties deteriorate. The exodus of higher economic groups to the suburbs and the influx into the declining central areas of lower income groups, generally racial minority groups, impose additional strain upon the municipal economy.' Guandolo, 'Housing Codes in Urban Renewal,' 25 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 1, 2. Housing codes are necessary for another reason '(C)learance and rehavilitation programs involve large expenditures of money and manpower; they are appropriate for, and normally limited to highly deteriorated neighborhoods * * *. Consequently, code enforcement remains the principal method by which cities can insure that minimum housing conditions are maintained. Through periodic inspection of all residential property, code enforcement attempts to detect and prevent deterioration, thereby obviating the need for more dramatic programs.' Comment, 'Enforcement of Municipal Housing Codes,' 78 Harv.L.Rev. 801, 803.

Connecticut, as well as other states, has recognized the need for municipal housing codes. ³ Allocation of authority may be found in a number of our statutes. ⁴ Basically, the housing code of the city of New Haven prescribes minimum conditions under which buildings may be lawfully occupied as dwellings or dwelling units. Within this concept of essential requirements for health, safety and public welfare, the code provides minimum standards of required basic sanitary and heating facilities and equipment, light and ventilation, construction and repair, and safe and sanitary maintenance of the buildings. Thus, the housing code of the city of New Haven is a self-defining term; it is merely the enforcement of a municipal code which applies to housing. The program envisioned by the code, generally speaking, is designed to encourage owners as well as tenants to repair, to refurnish, and to keep the buildings from becoming dilapidated, unsafe, dangerous, unhygienic or unsanitary. The code also provides sanctions to compel recalcitrants to comply with minimum standards.

We hold that the New Haven housing code is a lawful and proper exercise of the police power. It may be invalidated only where the means to achieve its goals are unreasonable, discriminatory or arbitrary. Connecticut Theatrical Corporation v. City of New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548. Unless a clear violation of constitutionality is shown, the presumption of constitutionality must sustain the ordinance. Amsel v. Brooks, 141 Conn. 288, 294, 106 A.2d 152, 45 A.L.R.2d 1234, appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 880, 75 S.Ct. 125, 99 L.Ed. 693; Schwartz v. Kelly, 140 Conn. 176, 179, 99 A.2d 89. If any reasonable ground to uphold the ordinance exists, especially where, as here, the apparent aim of the ordinance is to serve the general welfare, courts will assume that the legislative body intended to place it upon that ground and was not motivated by some improper purpose. State v. Gordon, 143 Conn. 698, 703, 125 A.2d 477; Legat v. Adorno, 138 Conn. 134, 145, 83 A.2d 185; ...