Residents’ allegations that city officials violated constitutional rights by entering their homes without notice as part of a code enforcement crackdown were settled, for now, when the city agreed in bankruptcy court Wednesday that it would seek permission before entering those residences in the future.
That’s not an admission that they did anything illegal, and it’s not a change to the city’s usual policy, Deputy City Attorney Jason Ewert said after the relatively brief hearing.
“We are going to be stipulating that at that property, in the future, we are going to obtain consent before executing an abatement order,” Ewert said. “That really isn’t different from how we typically go about getting these.”
end articleparagraph1.pbo start articleparagraph1.pbo
But that “typical” policy wasn’t followed in a surprise inspection of about 30 units at Edgehill Apartments in August as a publicized part of the city’s housing strategy, said Marjorie Barrios, the San Bernardino-based attorney who represents 12 of the tenants.
“They did go inside people’s homes, they ran background checks on people they have no business running background checks on, and they essentially told people, ‘Get out of your house’ — not necessarily at gunpoint, but, you were there, they had police standing there,” Barrios said after the hearing. “I was really happy with the court’s ruling.”
end articleparagraph1.pbo start articleparagraph1.pbo
At the time of the inspections at the Edgehill Apartment complex, at 100 W. 43rd St., city officials said they had warrants in hand but hadn’t given any warning. They said the inspections were part of a new housing policy designed to combat “bad actors” who don’t properly maintain housing complexes, which they argue contributes to crime and other problems in the city.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Meredith Jury said she would keep in place a stay that prevents lawsuits against the city while it’s in bankruptcy on the condition that the city stipulate it won’t enter the homes without permission in the future.
end articleparagraph1.pbo start articleparagraph1.pbo
“If the city is just barging into tenants’ apartments without some kind of (proper notice) ... that is something the city probably should not be doing,” Jury said, noting that evidence wasn’t presented to show that the city had in fact done so.
Barrios said her next action depended on how the city phrased its stipulation and whether they stuck to it. She said she’s evaluating whether she will pursue legal action after the bankruptcy.
Her clients did suffer monetary damage, she said, but she said the nature of those damages is confidential for now.
Barrios had previously sought a temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court that was denied in part because of the bankruptcy stay. However, the motion against San Bernardino County, whose probation officers participated in the inspections, continues.
All of the earlier actions related to the city violate the stay — intended to allow the city “breathing room” to keep its limited resources focused on the pressing bankruptcy case — which she said should have been well-known, Jury said.
“It is amazing to me,” she said. “At least I presume anybody who’s lived in the city of San Bernardino for the last three years knows there’s a bankruptcy.”