Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Holmes v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 421 A.2d 27 (1980)

Citation
Holmes v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 421 A.2d 27 (1980)
Parent Document
Holmes v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 421 A.2d 27 (1980)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1980-09-30

Other Sections in This Document (30)

Full Text

1,491 chars
Petitioner concedes that in applying for housing business licenses for his buildings he had impliedly consented to inspection of the common areas for compliance with both the Housing Code and the licensing regulations, and to inspection of the individual units for compliance with the licensing regulations. He argues, however, that a warrantless inspection of the individual units for compliance with the Housing Code violates his Fourth Amendment rights. The District of Columbia, citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), contends petitioner may not raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to an inspection of tenants’ apartments because he lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy therein. We need not decide, however, the question of the extent to which a landlord possesses a protected Fourth Amendment interest by virtue of a property right in a premises in which the rights of exclusive possession and control have been surrendered to a tenant.14 This case is governed by our decision in John D. Neumann Properties, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review, D.C.App., 268 A.2d 605 (1970). The landlord/petitioner in that case challenged war-rantless inspections of individual units as violation of its Fourth Amendment rights. We held that in applying for an apartment house license, the petitioner “is taken to have consented to the inspection made mandatory under [D.C.Code 1973, § 47-2302].” Id. at 606. Section 47-2302 commands that