|
Fisher Broyles
<br />October 31, 2023
<br />Page 3 of 4
<br />"aggrieved person" tenants, the City, the State Attorney General —can bring a civil action for
<br />damages or injunctive relief for violation of the requirements. Id. § 8-3200(b)-(c).
<br />II.
<br />Legal Claims
<br />A. Government Demands for Sensitive and Nonpublic Information Are Unconstitutional
<br />The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,
<br />houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." It further provides that
<br />"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Based on this constitutional text, the Court
<br />has repeatedly held that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval
<br />by [a] judge or [a] magistrate [judge], are per se unreasonable ... subject only to a few specifically
<br />established and well -delineated exceptions" not applicable here. City ofLos Angeles v. Patel, 576
<br />U.S. 409, 419 (2015); Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. 332, 338 (2009) (quoting Katz v. United States,
<br />389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). This rule applies, not just to homes, but to businesses as well. Marshall
<br />v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 312 (1978).
<br />"The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a constitutionally
<br />protected reasonable expectation of privacy." California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986)
<br />(quoting Katz, 389 U.S. at 360 (Harlan, J., concurring)). To show that a reasonable expectation of
<br />privacy exists, a court must inquire (1) whether a person has a "subjective expectation of privacy
<br />in the object of the challenged search," and (2) whether that expectation is recognized as reasonable
<br />by society. Apt. Ass'n of Greater L.A. v. City ofLos Angeles, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191234 (C.D.
<br />Cal. 2019). Significantly, "[c]ourts have frequently recognized that individuals have a substantial
<br />interest in the privacy of their home" such that "home contact information is generally considered
<br />private." Cty. ofL.A. v. L.A. Cty. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 56 Cal. 4th 905, 927 (2013).
<br />Section 8-3160(g) requires landlords to produce all "notice or documents" that any law
<br />requires to be provided by a landlord to a tenant, including leases and rental agreements. But
<br />landlords and tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in all such nonpublic documents
<br />exchanged between them. No other law requires such documents to be produced to the
<br />government. Importantly, those documents contain, among other things, highly sensitive
<br />information, including tenants' names and addresses. Cty. ofL.A., 56 Cal. 4th at 927. Section 8-
<br />3160(g) is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because it effectively seizes those
<br />documents on pain of criminal and civil sanctions.
<br />Further, the Administrator requires landlords to directly supply tenant information via the
<br />"rent registry" portal, including tenants' names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses. It
<br />even requires landlords to ask and report to the government every tenant's "preferred" language.
<br />P 1 1 PJI, [A 11114 1 I I ARJ t i III' t I {I II It:;lly, N,%\ II ULI VL_L AI',L_a I C <(A.HIM131.J :', I L iALL_A
<br />J INVI—R, LA, I RULI I I I(. UL,,l OI` II I I_UN L. UI'4 L () S ,VI At�kLi:P..I. J ( IVIt'(MI I,0'1' 1.1""", 1 I`JILVV'Y 4 Rt,,,, I PAl_t Y /ti,L I C)
<br />PIIIIJyL.(I:r.IJ`1IIV" I PI,`LNC,I_L(:t1vL tI I I./\KI (IIY I `C.AI IL.Ii j VV'0t31III1(x10\� D,(;';.
<br />
|