A major decision that will impact Minnesotans’ privacy rights is waiting to be heard in the state’s court of Appeals.
It all started off simply enough. Jason and Jackie Wiebesick were a Golden Valley couple who lived in a duplex. One day, officials from the city approached them to ask permission to inspect their home. The stated reason was to collect information so as to make a decision over whether to renew the Wiebesick’s rental license.
Disturbed by the prospect of unfamiliar people walking around their home, the Wiebesick’s turned down the inspectors’ request. One might think it would have ended there, but the city saw to it that it didn’t.
Taking the case to court, Golden Valley authorities implored a county judge to issue a warrant overriding the Wiebesick’s objections and allowing them into the house. Tellingly, the judge refused their request for a warrant, prompting the city to reach even higher.
See video about the case on the next page:
What’s even deadlier is the precedent it sets.
You must be another Obama voter.
U take that back. I never would say something that mean to anyone.
BTW occupancy laws came into existence back in the 30s and 40s. This is not a new subject. Landlords must provide proof they are providing a renter a safe building to live in.
This is not about privacy.
Without these laws we would be back to seeing innocent people trapped in slum lord apt buildings with no sprinklers or fire exits.
If you don’t agree, then choose not to live in a city. It is your free choice.
They are no different than any other business that offers services to the public. It isn’t their home, they’re renting it out to people. The city has the right to inspect to be sure it has heat, sanitation, firewall, privacy, drainage and everything else. If there isn’t safety from a fire in their house it could spread to the other half of the duplex. They’re not inspecting it to see if they have drugs, they’re inspecting it to protect renter’s rights. Every municipality does this-it’s just complicated because it is a duplex.
If the renter initiated this I would see your point.
Nope. I have to disagree. Most residential fires in Chicago are rental properties. More injuries occur on rental property. It is not for the Lessor to determine whether an inspection is warranted. It should be mandatory.
Stand strong. The local, state, and federal governments, are all, out of control, to “keep you safe”
I agree with the city that the property should be inspected to make sure it is safe for perspective renter’s. But I believe that’s a matter of the Insurance company. The city has the right to require the landlord to hold certain insurance to protect the renter as well as MAYBE requiring the landlord to have a business license as rental units provide income and upkeep.
Okay they think they can search somebody’s property without a warrant wrong answer folks our governor hates Obama he won’t let them do that here in Kansas. Warrant required no if and or but about that