The funny part is that I don’t think asking rental property owners to register is unconstitutional. I take issue with searching property that doesn’t register. While the city ‘claims’ they will get a warrant to search an unregistered property, it is a stretch to say they can search a property because someone didn’t fill out a city form. The city has been busted several times searching people’s property without warrants. I see an opportunity here for abuse and unlawful search based on a bogus city ordinance. The proposal has already been thrown out by the Land Use Committee, but it doesn’t stop Mr. Point from arguing with me about it’s constitutionality. I’m not the only one who questions it and property rights afforded by our constitution.
As I point out at the end of our discussion, the big guys in town want to regulate out the little guys, and they want the city to do their dirty work for them.
The city can’t tell you which way to wipe your ass. There’s to much intrusion. Rental property is a desperate need. We’ll crush a cockroach or trap a mouse. Keep this up and there won’t be any fast food or cubicle workers. Hamburgers will cost $100.
Well your both correct. If drafted properly and given the correct legal process for challenge of the law, the ordinance would be constitutional. But as we know, they city is too inept to create such a ordinance or process, so no it most likely would not be constitutional.
TY LJL, exactly my point.
The key word in understanding the 4th amendment is its inclusion of the word “unreasonable” in regard to searches. I.E., for no good reason. therefore – the 4th also empowers government to search if they have a REASON – such as someone failing to follow a city ordinance and register their rental property.
PS – The “reasonableness” test of thew 4th does NOT apply to the ordinance – only to the search.