cannabisnews.com: HUD's Drug Rule Overturned





HUD's Drug Rule Overturned
Posted by FoM on January 25, 2001 at 05:58:49 PT
By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer 
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
Saying Congress never intended to drive innocent people from their homes, a federal appeals court overturned the government's "one-strike" policy, which let public housing authorities evict tenants for drug activity they knew nothing about. Yesterday's 7-to-4 ruling in an Oakland case invalidates the policy in California and eight other Western states. Nationwide, more than 3 million low- income residents of federally funded housing live under the rules adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1991. 
Those rules allow, but do not require, local housing authorities to evict tenants for illegal drug activity by any household member or guest, on or off the premises. HUD says the rules apply no matter when or where the wrongdoing took place; government lawyers told the court a relative's possession of a marijuana cigarette 3,000 miles away would be enough. "Tenants should take some level of responsibility for making sure their friends or family aren't engaging in drug-related conduct," said Whitty Somvichian, lawyer for four elderly Oakland tenants who challenged their eviction orders. "HUD's policy goes far beyond that, and provides for eviction even when tenants can show they've taken every reasonable step within their power." Eviction for those tenants is often "a sentence of homelessness," said Anne Omura, managing attorney at the Eviction Defense Center in Oakland. But Gary Lafayette, lawyer for the Oakland Housing Authority, said allowing tenants who deny knowledge of drug use to avoid eviction would hurt children who "want to play in public housing without the threat of violence connected to drugs." Even if the tenant is lying, it's often hard to prove, he said. HUD spokeswoman Donna White said the department would not comment until it had studied the ruling. HUD, led by newly confirmed Bush appointee Mel Martinez, can appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and was virtually invited to do so by the court's dissenting judges. "It is HUD, and not this court, that can best determine what is reasonable in the context of the public housing drug crisis," said Judge Joseph Sneed, writing for the dissenters. He said a broad eviction policy would discourage drug use, encourage tenant vigilance and still allow local authorities to make humanitarian exceptions. But the majority, led by Judge Michael Hawkins, said HUD's policy went beyond the bounds of federal laws passed in 1988 and 1990 that authorized evictions for household drug use. "Imposing the threat of eviction on an innocent tenant who has already taken all reasonable steps to prevent third-party drug activity could not have a deterrent effect," and might also be unconstitutional, Hawkins said. He said the law, though "not a model of clarity," should be interpreted to allow evictions only when the tenant knew about the drug activity or should have known about it. The San Francisco-based court is the first appellate panel to rule on the legality of the policy. The four Oakland tenants included Pearlie Rucker, 67, who faced an eviction order because her mentally disabled daughter allegedly possessed cocaine three blocks from her apartment. Rucker said she had monitored her daughter's activities and searched her room but knew nothing of her alleged drug use. After the suit was filed in 1996, the Oakland Housing Authority dropped its case against Rucker. Lafayette, the authority's lawyer, said Rucker had addressed the problem by removing her daughter from the household. Two other tenants, Willie Lee, 73, and Barbara Hill, 67, had grandsons who lived in their apartments and allegedly possessed marijuana in the housing project parking lot. The fourth tenant, Herman Walker, 78, a disabled man, was ordered out after being notified three times that his in-home caretaker possessed cocaine in his apartment. He said he fired the caretaker as soon as he could find a replacement, and argued that his eviction for the caretaker's drug use would violate disability- rights laws. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled in the tenants' favor in 1998 and issued an injunction prohibiting the OHA, which has about 5,000 residents, from making drug-related evictions without proof that the tenant was aware of the illegal activity.Note: Appeals court says 'one-strike' policy evicts tenants unfairly.E-mail Bob Egelko at: begelko sfchronicle.com Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer  Published: Thursday, January 25, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco ChronicleAddress: 901 Mission St., San Francisco CA 94103Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/Feedback: http://www.sfgate.com/select.feedback.htmlRelated Articles:Court Frowns on Evicting HUD Tenants Unaware http://cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7093.shtmlFederal Court Nullifies its February Decisionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6758.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 25, 2001 at 18:14:58 PT:
Related Article
HUD Can't Base Evictions on Guests' Actions http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8456.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by meagain on January 25, 2001 at 13:46:55 PT
Thank you
Thank you 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . I feel the only time HUD should be allowed to evict a tenant is if one or more of these conditions are witnissed and a conviction occurs in a court of law...1. Drug trafficking /Manufacturing by any minor. 2. Drug trafficking /Manufacturing by any adult in the actual presence of a minor.I salute the 9th Court of Appeals in this decision may freedom reign in America!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 25, 2001 at 08:16:43 PT:
Judicial Watchdogs
Although not specified, this appears to be a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which stands alone in its defense of civil rights, liberties and preservation of constitutional integrity. May their banner fly long and proudly.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: