The Riveras and landlord Steve Camburn are suing the borough of Pottstown after an ordinance directs landlords to obtain tenants' written consent for inspections by borough-approved third parties when tenants deny entry. The Institute for Justice says the rule is a constitutional workaround to a Commonwealth Court ruling that warrants to inspect occupied rentals require individualized probable cause. Pottstown says 15 properties face licensing enforcement and potential penalties, including fines and displacement; the dispute is now before state and federal courts.
Pottstown Tenants Sue, Claim Borough Outsourced Inspections To Evade Warrant Ruling
Photo Credit: iStock
A new legal battle in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, has put renter privacy and housing stability at the center of a constitutional fight. Tenants Dottie and Eddy Rivera and their landlord, Steve Camburn, have filed lawsuits after the borough adopted a revised rental-inspection ordinance that they say pressures residents to allow government-directed searches of occupied homes.
According to the Institute for Justice (IJ), the borough enacted the policy after losing a court case and designed it to preserve inspections despite a judicial ruling that warrants to search occupied rental properties require individualized probable cause.
Under the amended ordinance, if a tenant denies entry to a borough inspector, the landlord must obtain that tenant's written consent for an inspection by a third-party inspector approved by the borough. The borough retains control over who is approved, the conditions of the inspection and the power to enforce compliance.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys argue that outsourcing inspections to a borough-approved contractor does not meaningfully protect privacy or eliminate the constitutional concerns highlighted by the Commonwealth Court. The lawsuit contends the policy is effectively coercive because the borough threatens landlords and tenants with penalties to force compliance.
"The borough's new law is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the Commonwealth Court's decision holding that Pottstown must establish individualized probable cause before obtaining a warrant to search an occupied rental home," said IJ Senior Attorney Jeffrey Redfern. "The government cannot get around the Constitution by outsourcing warrantless searches to third parties or coercing people into opening their doors."
Pottstown officials notified Camburn that the Riveras’ property and 14 other addresses were operating without proper licensing after tenants at those locations refused inspections. The borough ordered Camburn to start the third-party inspection process by Wednesday and warned that noncompliance could trigger enforcement actions, including placards on properties, injunctions, license revocation, fines and other penalties.
Documents cited in the litigation state that financial penalties could total at least $600 per unit per month, and that tenants living in unlicensed units could potentially be required to vacate.
The dispute stems from a nearly decade-long conflict over Pottstown’s rental inspection program. For years the borough required occupied rentals to be inspected every two years so landlords could maintain licenses. When tenants previously denied entry, borough officials sought administrative warrants for comprehensive inspections despite, IJ says, lacking individualized probable cause.
That practice led to a unanimous Commonwealth Court ruling that Pottstown could not obtain warrants to inspect occupied rental homes without individualized probable cause. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal, the borough adopted the new ordinance instead of waiting for the state high court’s decision.
The Institute for Justice represents the Riveras and Camburn in the ongoing state litigation and in a new federal lawsuit. The state case focuses on the legal standard Pottstown must meet under the Pennsylvania Constitution to obtain an inspection warrant. The federal complaint challenges whether the borough may achieve the same practical result—inspections of occupied homes—by coercing landlords and tenants through fines, license threats and the risk of displacement via third-party inspections.
"For years, the borough has been trying to force me to betray my tenants' constitutional rights, and the new threats are just the latest attempt to do so," Camburn said. "We are ready to keep fighting for as long as it takes to make sure nobody in Pottstown is forced to open their doors without a warrant based on probable cause."
Pottstown is not alone in drawing scrutiny for housing-enforcement practices critics say put undue pressure on residents. Similar controversies have arisen elsewhere involving eviction threats for minor rule violations, disputes over property-management enforcement, and fines for everyday behavior in apartment complexes.
The lawsuits now ask state and federal courts to decide whether Pottstown's revised approach is a lawful public-safety measure or an unconstitutional workaround that erodes renters' privacy and housing stability.
Help us improve.
