Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)

Citation: Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Parent Document: Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2001-01-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7086389/rucker-v-davis/ ↗

Full Text

1,076 chars

While the policy considerations pointed out by the dissent may apply to the evic*1121tion of culpable tenants [Dissent at 1128 - 42], we do not believe they support the eviction of innocent ones. 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 because the tenant would have already done all that tenant could do to prevent the third-party drug activity. Likewise, evicting the innocent tenant will not significantly reduce drug-related criminal activity in public housing, since the tenant has not engaged in any such activity personally or knowingly allowed such activity to occur. HUD’s construction of subsection (6) would allow such irrational evictions, and thus would require PHAs to include an unreasonable term in their leases and permit eviction without good cause. Read in the context of the overall statutory scheme and in light of the legislative history (discussed below), we cannot say Congress intended such a result. 2. Forfeiture Provision

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text