2021-08-10 P & Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: To enter onto private property, government officials normally must either have the owner’s permission, or have first obtaineda search warrant. 1. Plain view When a city official is able to observe a violation from a public street, Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S., sidewalk, or neighboring property (provided that neighboring property 476 U.S. 227, 106 S. Ct. 1819 (1986). owner granted permission to be there), a person can be charged with an Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. ordinance violation. The observation must provide the official all the Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 861, 94 S. Ct. 2114 information necessary to conclude that the nuisance condition exists. (1974). Common examples of nuisances that can exist and be classified as such from a plain view can include diseased trees, noxious weeds, long grass, the accumulation of junk, and noise. Horton v. California, 496 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when a criminal act or violation is U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301 within plain view, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (1990). seizure may be permissible without first obtaining a warrant. However, if the nuisance condition is not serious enough to warrant immediate abatement, officials should provide notice to the offender of the condition and an opportunity for self-remedy. 2. Consent to enter Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, Consent searches are important tools for local officials as an individual’s 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041 consent will legitimize investigations that would otherwise be invalid (1973). under Fourth Amendment provisions. Consent searches can be reasonable and avoid the need to obtain an administrative search warrant, especially in conditions when an alleged nuisance violation cannot be identified by plain view, or when circumstances need to be abated by local officials. Camara v. Municipal Court, Consent may be given by the owner or tenant of the property, or by an 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727 individual in control of the premises. Consent must be given voluntarily. (1967). U.S. v. J. B. Kramer Grocery Co., 418 F.2d 987 Courts have upheld consent searches when individuals provide a (8th Cir. 1969). Carlin v. “welcoming action” such as waving instead of providing a verbal Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 413 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. response. An individual does not have to be told they have a right to refuse 1987). entry, but an inspector cannot insist entering or other acts of coercion if entry is denied. When possible, obtain a written consent prior to entering private property. 3. Search warrants If the city does not have consent from the property owner or tenant, it must U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, obtain an administrative search warrant before entering the property. The 107 S. Ct. 1134 (1987). Search Warrant of Columbia warrant process protects an individual’s privacy against arbitrary invasions Heights v. Rozman, 586 by the government. Steps taken to preserve privacy are relevant when N.W.2d 273 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). considering entry issues. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/16/2020 Public Nuisances Page 23