NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

[Guest]

First off I am referencing CA laws & codes.

My read is that in CA anyway the AHJ can get a warrant and enter your house against your will to inspect code violations if they feel there is an eminent threat to public safety.

The procedures provided by the general laws of the State of California, presently codified as Sections 1822.50 to 1822.57, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, shall govern the issuance, execution and enforcement of an inspection warrant in the event the owner or occupant of a building refuses to permit an inspection thereof by an authorized employee of a City department.

Am I reading this right to interpret it to say if I say my neighbor has a dangerous electrical condition the AHJ can get a warrant (if necessary) to enter and inspect the danger? Can they then force my neighbor to comply? I'm not planning to invoke this law, but I have visions of jack-booted AHJ's kicking in the door. Not likely to happen, but I did take notice. What is your feeling about this?

There have been discussions here about the AHJ having to take a blind eye to extra code violations they see when they do a remodel inspection. Where is the line drawn? The power looks pretty broad to me.

I plan to ask the AHJ to do a code survey of my house before I call for the final just to make sure I haven't missed anything. I consider the AHJ to be on my side. The AHJ is a tool to help us do things safely. If they step outside of that boundary, we can always take it to the next level. I believe in the system, and I welcome the AHJ at my door.

I look forward to your comments on the "inspection warrant" power. I stumbled across this CA statute while I was researching the SF Electrical Code for an upcoming project. I am not looking for any legal interpretation. I just want to bring it to the table for discussion.

Here is a link to the SF Electrical Code.

Here is a link to the whole SF Housing/Building/Plumbing/Electrical/HVAC/Etc. code.

This link may be easier to navigate (initially). I found it beneficial to shift-click on the heading to open each category in a full window.


[ September 25, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[ryan_618]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

State law cannot circumvent federal law, see the fourth amendment to the constitution. Case dismissed.

 

[charlie b]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

Ryan's comment notwithstanding, I don?t think any members of this type of forum are likely to consider themselves qualified to speak with authority on points of law. My own reading of the lines you quoted (I did not take the time to follow any of the links) is that the process had to have started with a reason for an inspection. Some activity (e.g., new construction of a hotel, remodeling of a residence, or periodic safety inspection of a public building) had to have invoked a legal requirement for an inspection. If the owner refuses to allow the inspection, then the AHJ can seek a warrant. But I don?t see the lines you quoted as creating an opportunity for kicking down any doors.

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

I hope that no judge will sign such a warrant. This could be a destruction of our rights.

To have freedom, there is always some risks.

 

[Guest]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

Understood. To clarify. I don't expect a legal opinion. I just want to hear reactions or personal knowledge of this type of ordinance.

If you follow the links, there is a statement in the SF code (paraphrased for brevity) about being able to do an inspection if the AHJ is aware of an eminent threat to public safety. It does not mention any boundaries for being apprised of the threat.

Another spin on it might be that if an AHJ is notified of an eminent threat that they are in some way compelled to perform an inspection by whatever means.

I promise not to further add to this thread, and I shall let it run its natural course from this point on. I wanted to clarify that I'm not expecting a binding legal opinion-- just opinions-- and that's what this forum is for-- as I understand it-- the publicly available exchange of opinions-- to help us hone our opinions-- and to help us come to our own conclusions.

PS: I noticed some interesting changes to the format of the forum today. Not sure what they all are or what the implications are but confident that it will improve the functionality and benefit of this forum.

../Wayne C.

[ September 25, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

There might be a proper place and time for an inspection warrant. Consider a landlord (slumlord?) who refuses to allow the Fire Marshall into the building for an annual inspection that is required by law. Wouldn?t it be acceptable, even desirable, for the Fire Marshall to be able to obtain a warrant that forces the landlord to open the doors? I see this as being very different from a ?Big Brother? environment, in which any inspector can enter any house for any reason, just to see what might be found.

 

[jhines]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

Charlie is right. In Sacramento, the building department has had to enforce this. If you end up at an existing site and find serious electrical hazards, isn't it your obligation to call it in?

 

[tony_psuee]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

Charlie,

I think your slumlord analogy most likely hits it on the head. Not being a lawyer, I believe that any search warrant requires that just cause be shown to the court before it is issued, "Cops" reruns and more recently "The Shield". I believe the main city near me, Harrisburg, gives the housing officer the right to enter any rental property for inspection of adherence to code. That came about from absentee landlords not maintaining their properties.

If you think about infringement of rights, in PA Comcast Cablevision has a statement in the cable bill that with receiving their services you allow a technician to make an inspection of your premises anytime. No warrant, no we would like your permission to come into your home at this time and date and look and what you have hooked up to the cable. It is not done for public safety, but to investigate theft of services.

Tony

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

Tony,
The cable system is different. You gave them the right to inspect when you asked for cable service. If you don't want them to have the right to inspect, then don't ask them to provide you with their service.
The builing inspector or anyone else or any other type of governmental offical must have "probable cause" to get the warrant. In most cases, just someone saying that there is or may be a problem is not "probable cause".
Don

 

[charlie b]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

I agree. Step 1 is that some law provides a requirement for an inspection. Step 2 is that the owner refuses to let the inspector in. The warrant doesn?t come about until Step 3.

 

[hbiss]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

...with receiving their services you allow a technician to make an inspection of your premises anytime. No warrant, no we would like your permission to come into your home at this time and date and look and what you have hooked up to the cable. It is not done for public safety, but to investigate theft of services.

...The cable system is different. You gave them the right to inspect when you asked for cable service. If you don't want them to have the right to inspect, then don't ask them to provide you with their service.

This is a vastly different situation than obtaining a warrant from a judge for the good of the public. This is completely self serving. I don't care what they print on their bills, about all they can do if you refuse their "inspection" is to turn off your service. They have no more right to enter your premises than anybody else. If they suspect theft of service strongly enough they can go before a judge and get a warrant too if they have sufficient evidence.

Cable companies use intimidation, disinformation and "inducing" law makers (read $$$)to write laws in their favor to fight theft of service because it is far cheaper and easier than technological methods that would only send into your house what you pay for. If it's not there to begin with all the "black boxes" in the world won't help you get full service without paying.

Unlike other "utilities" like POCO or TELCO, a cable co's whole premise of losing money to theft of service is based on the assumption that people would otherwise be paying for what they steal. Whether you are connected to their system or not, whether you have 1 set or 10 sets and whether you have basic or full service makes NO difference to their system. They are out nothing as opposed to stealing power which puts additional load on the network which costs money to generate. Stealing telephone service costs the company money in call handling.

Yes, this is stealing- no need to argue that point, but somehow I just don't feel sorry for them. Don't tell us that it costs money when it doesn't. Don't intimidate by telling us you can enter our homes without notice and don't get laws turned in your favor because making criminals and examples of you customers is the cheaper way out.

Okay. Off my soapbox and back on topic.

 

[iwire]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

I agree that if the "cable police" come to my door I would slam it in their face, I doubt highly they want the liability of kicking in the door just because of a clause in the contract.

They can easily cut off service outside my home, and if they have a legitimate reason to enter my home they can certainly go to a judge with my contract and their "evidence" to a judge and get the sheriff involved.

That said cable theft is theft plan and simple no gray areas.

Do I feel bad for them heck no, but they have rights too.

As for Wayne's post I would hope that probable cause before a judge would still be needed.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

Awwt: There is an interesting book called "legal aspects of code administration" that is a required reference for the certified building official exam. If you are interested in this topic, I would highly reccomend it. It discusses a lot of the legal aspects that I do for a living, such as search and seizure, assualt and battery (yes I'm serious) and neglegent malfeasance vs. malicious prosecution.

 

[ceb]

Re: NEC code enforcement warrant in CA

I think the main words are "public safety". I agree with Charlie if it were in a apartment building where the residents did not have control over what a unscrupulous land lord might or might not do then I say the AHJ should be able to obtain a warrant and enter the building.But, for a private homeowner I think it would be very hard for the AHJ to obtain a warrant based on one phone call from a neighbor.The cable co. would be a different story. A private co. has no legal standing in entering your home. If the cable guy ask to come in and inspect and you let him is one thing but they cannot demand to come in.