This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state court in Sioux County, Iowa, has killed a scheme by the officials in Orange City that would allow them to inspect rental homes at any time for any reason.
Without notification to residents.
"Our homes contain some of our most personal and intimate records and belongings, and those private materials should not be subjected to the government’s prying eye unless they obtain a warrant based on something more than just the existence of the regulation—and seek that warrant in an adversarial proceeding, where the tenant can speak up for themselves," said Institute for Justice lawyer Rob Peccola.
"The administrative warrants in Orange City’s now-stricken mandatory rental inspection program did not meet these basic constitutional requirements, and nothing would stop inspectors from sharing tenant information with law enforcement.”
A report from the IJ said the decision came in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of landlords and renters in the town.
"Today’s decision striking down Orange City’s inspection ordinance is a major win for the basic privacy rights of all renters in Orange City," explained John Wrench, another IJ lawyer.
"You don’t lose your constitutional rights because you rent your home, instead of owning your home."
The town's law allowed the city to search renters' homes without the consent of the renters if officials got an "administrative warrant," which did not require the city to show any suspicion or probable cause.
The court ruled the plan violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Iowa Constitution and could not stand.
Erika Nordyke and her husband Bryan Singer live in a home they rent from their landlord, Josh Dykstra. Upon hearing about Orange City’s law requiring them to open their doors to city inspections without their consent, they teamed up with IJ to file the lawsuit.
The ruling said searches could proceed only if the city provided "some plausible basis for believing that a violation is likely to be found" and the tenants were notified and given the opportunity to advocate against the search.
WND reported when the case first developed, the city tried to get it thrown out.
At the time, a judge rejected a demand from city officials that their new spy-on-renters program be continued.
The city said it hadn't tried to spy on anyone yet, so the lawsuit couldn't move forward, but Chief Judge Patrick H. Tott wasted little time on that, stating, "If the plaintiffs are required to wait until the inspection is in process, they will have little, or likely no, recourse to the courts to prevent the injury(ies) they assert they will suffer to their privacy rights."