# Can government housing projects create lease conditions that reduce or negate constitutional rights?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 31, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665 "2011-01-31T16:53:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665/21 "2011-02-01T16:16:42Z")
When I worked in rentalproperty management, a standard lease clause was “Any illegal activity will be grounds for immediate eviction.” The tenants had to initial it and I explained it to them. It was never tested in court.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665/22 "2011-02-01T21:32:03Z")
First of all, could a completely private landlord make such conditions? I assume that they could, or this whole conversation would be rather short. But now, what if we have some sort of cooperative arrangement between the government and a private entity, where the government partially subsidizes the costs, or acts as a placement agent, or whatever? If it’s acceptable for a private landlord to do something, and if we stipulate that it’s not acceptable for the government to do it, what level of government involvement is too much?
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2011, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665/23 "2011-02-01T22:50:36Z")
> [@villa](#):
>
> _Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker_, 535 U.S. 125 (2002).
>
> A unanimous Court permitted a law allowing the eviction of residents who used drugs, or where drugs were used on their premises by family members or guests. So if your grandson’s friend lights up a blunt, you can be evicted. There is no requirement that you are present, or even that you are aware it is happening. There is no defense that you did not know the person was taking drugs, or that you took all reasonable precautions to prevent someone from taking drugs.
>
> This isn’t as direct as the conditions **Bricker** mentioned, but it certainly shows the viewpoint of the Court towards this.
It says nothing, though, about the search of the apartment.
---
### Author:  [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665/24 "2011-02-01T23:03:07Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#):
>
> It says nothing, though, about the search of the apartment.
Of course it doesn’t. It’s a situation that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t come up before the Court before. So instead, one looks at the way the Court has dealt with other situations, and seeks to analogize from them what it would do in the one under discussion.
What _Rucker_ says to me is that the Court is willing to permit individuals to sign away certain legal protections when they enter public housing - like due process when it comes to evictions. What it doesn’t say is what other rights they can be required to sign away.
I think it highly unlikely the Court would permit requiring them to sign away 1st Amendment rights - the Court has always required the highest showing for their restrictions, and there simply isn’t a particularly impressive government need for people resident in housing projects to not criticize the housing authority. 4th Amendment rights, on the other hand, are different. In _Rucker_, the Court stressed the importance of keeping drugs out of housing projects, and the benefits to the residents of low crime. 4th Amendment rights can be waived - no warrant or suspicion is needed if one consents to a search. I think it more likely that the Court would approve such a waiver, however coerced it may seem to some. The potential joker, of course, is Scalia, who is pretty firm on 4th Amendment rights.
---
### Author:  [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665/25 "2011-02-02T02:04:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> First of all, could a completely private landlord make such conditions? I assume that they could, or this whole conversation would be rather short.
If a landlord can or not depends a lot on the state. In Montana [landlords can not ban guns](http://www.dailypaul.com/112703/question-can-a-landlord-prohitbit-firearms-on-their-rental-property). In Tennessee [they can](http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/10/28/landlords-can-ban-tenants-from-having-guns/). There is a [very recent lawsuit](http://www.uiargonaut.com/sections/news/stories/2011/jan/12511/law_student_suing.html) filed in Idaho over exactly this, so it’s not exactly a settled decision everywhere.
Since the states seem to be all over the map on the issue, it doesn’t provide much direction on if a federal agency could enforce such a ban. Since housing project usually involve HUD and federal funding, it would provide an interesting court case if they tried.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-housing-projects-create-lease-conditions-that-reduce-or-negate-constitutional-rights/569665.md?page=1)