## Facts

- The Village of Park Forest enacted a housing code program requiring annual interior inspections of non–owner-occupied single-family rental homes.
- The code required the “owner or occupant” to provide access; if access was refused, the Village was to obtain an administrative search warrant or court order before inspecting.
- The Village charged a $100 inspection fee and imposed an additional $60 fee when it had to obtain an administrative warrant.
- Debra Taylor rented a single-family home subject to the program; the Village sought to schedule an inspection through her landlord, who refused consent.
- An inspector later visited when no one was home, left a notice stating a search warrant had been issued, and the Village pursued contempt proceedings in state court based on noncompliance with inspection demands.
- Tenants (including Taylor) filed a § 1983 action challenging the inspection scheme under the Fourth Amendment; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether an ordinance allowing inspection access based on consent from the “owner or occupant” unlawfully permits inspections of a tenant’s home based on landlord consent rather than tenant consent.
2. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits administrative search warrants for interior housing inspections based solely on the passage of time since the last inspection.
3. Whether the program was supported by “reasonable legislative and administrative standards” sufficient to justify administrative inspections under Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
4. Whether imposing an additional fee when the government must obtain a warrant unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of Fourth Amendment rights.

## Decision

- The court denied the Village’s motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims.
- On the consent claim, the court found a genuine factual dispute as to whether the ordinance would be applied unconstitutionally by relying on landlord consent without ensuring tenant consent.
- On the warrant standard and reasonableness claims, the court held the program unconstitutional to the extent it justified warrants solely by the passage of time, without adequate legislative/administrative standards or tailoring.
- On the fee claim, the court held the additional $60 warrant-related fee unconstitutional because it penalized refusal of consent and insistence on a warrant.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative housing inspections implicate the Fourth Amendment and generally require a warrant absent valid consent.
- A landlord’s consent does not substitute for a tenant’s consent to search or inspect the tenant’s residence; consent must come from the occupant (or a person with common authority).
- For administrative inspection warrants, “probable cause” is evaluated by reasonable legislative or administrative standards rather than individualized suspicion, but the standards must be sufficiently articulated and reasonable in scope and justification.
- An inspection scheme may violate the Fourth Amendment where warrants are sought solely because time has passed, without clear standards identifying the problem addressed and parameters of the searches, particularly when less intrusive or more targeted alternatives exist.
- Government may not impose a fee or financial penalty on persons who exercise Fourth Amendment rights by refusing consent and requiring the government to obtain a warrant.

## Conclusion

The court held that Park Forest’s rental inspection regime raised Fourth Amendment problems where it risked relying on landlord consent in place of tenant consent, authorized warrants on a time-only basis without adequate administrative standards, and imposed an added fee for requiring the Village to obtain a warrant.


Black v. Village of Park Forest, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (N.D. Ill. 1998)