From: "Evidence Inc." <evidence@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 19:03:43 PDT
To: Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ <jims@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Warrantless searches -- A sign of things to come?
In-Reply-To: <9404181430.AA22279@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.85.9404181814.A3139-0100000@netcom5>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



The easiest solution is to include a provision in the rental agreement 
stating that you won't possess firearms in the apartment.  In addition, 
include a provision that indicates that the tenant wil consent to any 
search requested by the landlord.  You could even make these provision 
optional, such that any tenant can decline to agree to them by checking 
the appropriate box. 
 
(Most tenants in such projects probably won't bother to read them anyway).

Once agreed to, if a tenant refuses to consent to a search, they can be 
evicted for breaching the rental agreement.  If they consent, and guns 
are found, they can likewise be evicted.  No criminal prosecution need
ever be initiated....

I'm not sure that all states would permit searches even under these 
circumstances, but its a basic rule of 4th amendment law that you can 
consent to warrantless searches.  Getting the consent up front, 
especially where it could be refused, would eliminate the problem of 
warrantless searches.  Of course, if you refused consent, the landlords
might just watch you a little more closely...

Comments?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence, Inc.       |   The Internet Cops are watching, 
Evidence@Nowhere.Nil |       aren't they?                
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Mon, 18 Apr 1994, Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 94 13:39:39 
> > paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> > 
> > >A Page 1 story in The Washington Post Sunday (94.04.17) reads,
> ... [warrantless searches of housing project] ...
> > Anyway, the point is, these people aren't safe in their own homes.
> 
> 
>   The people of CHA didn't forfeit the right to being secure in their homes.

But they could by signing a waiver, as discussed above..