Correspondence - Item 23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Potential Violations of Federal and State Constitutional Protections Finally, we are concerned that any policy requiring inspections by or on behalf of a government entity for the intent of identifying criminal activity violates the State and Federal constitutional protections against unreasonablesearches and seizures. Not only is such a violation of individualsconstitutionalrights alarming, but such a violation could result in the exclusion of evidence which would challenge law ability to keep the community safe and would undermine the supposed intent of the policy. The single incident cited in the Councilmember-Requested Item Report indicates that a warrant was obtained by police officers pursuant to their ongoing investigation, which seems to indicate the proper and constitutional form of conducting such a search was followed and such procedures should continue to be followed to protect the constitutional rights of Santa Ana residents. In addition, singling out Permanent Supportive Housing residents for inspections raises obvious due process, equal protection, and privacy concerns, which may further violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the residents. In addition to the legal concerns raised above, PLC believes drafting an ordinance at this time is premature, unsupported by evidence and likely counter-productive. The request asserts that there was a single search warrant for sale of narcotics executed by Santa Police officers in February 2025 at one apartment in one permanent supportive housing community. From there, without any support the Request concludes Permanent Supportive Housing and that monthly inspections are a solution. This is not evidenced-based policy development and is potentially discriminatory in its intent. We note that that the success of Permanent Supportive Housing hinges upon creating a stable living environment, an environment which monthly inspections depriving residents of their privacy may endanger. Furthermore, individuals in need of Permanent Supportive Housing may be wary of accepting this housing and service option, if they will be subject to monthly inspections which not only violate their privacy, but potentially have negative impacts on disabilities they may have. We encourage the City Council to vote against Item 23. Sincerely, Richard Walker Directing Attorney Housing and Homelessness Prevention Public Law Center 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 (714) 541-1010 ext. 292 rwalker@publiclawcenter.org ---5157