OK, a friend in Idaho rents a Gov’t subsidized apartment. They have occasional inspections. No problem. Except now they would open cabinets, drawers, closets, etc. & take pictures. Has anyone heard about this & is this legal? I can understand if a renter has given reason for suspicion but this sounds very hinky. Are her privacy rights being violated here or does being on Gov’t subsidy make her legally vulnerable to this?
You would actually have to go and read the regulations that the agency has set up for the program.
I would wonder what they would do if someone had a small personal safe … it is not part of the original housing unit, nor would it be part of any provided furnishings. I never had the combination to my Dad’s safe until I became his executor so if someone had demanded that I open it, they would have been shit out of luck - and my dad would have gotten litigious about them cracking into his safe without his permission. if your friend had a safe, would they force her to open it, and in her absence, called in a locksmith to break into the safe? What if she had a locked cheap fiberboard footlocker, would they pop the locks? What if she puts a lock on the closet door, would they break the door to get into the closet?
She might consider contacting some form of renters legal aid about things.
Having been born & raised in the place, I can confidently say that “rights” are construed a little differently in Idaho than elsewhere. Basically only rich people, officials of state government and christian fundamentalists have rights. Poor folks, wage earners, people of color, renters, and those with alternative religious beliefs need not apply.
That said, it does sound like your friend’s privacy has been compromised. She might try to contact legal aid or the ACLU (I hear there are a couple of ACLU types in-state, deep under cover and hard to contact). The down side is that if she makes waves the landlord will probably find some other pretext to be rid of her.
SS
Two potential answers occur to me:
-
I’m assuming this is Section 8 Federally-subsidized housing, as nationwide the vast majority of subsidized housing is. Some states also have state-subsidized programs supplementing it, but I don’t see Idaho doing much of that. All Section 8 housing is required to be built/rehabbed to some exacting standards, e.g., an electrical entrance of no less than X amps, a bedroom for each child (with exception), adequate storage areas in kitchen/pantry, etc. It’s possible that this is being documented.
-
Another requirement in the lease is that the property not be used for illegal activities. It’s by no means unheard of for a local law enforcement agency with suspicions but inadequate evidence to show probable cause for a search warrant to ask the HUD/state housing inspectors to conduct an inspection – which they are legally empowered to do by the lease terms (see #1), but with the intent of looking for illegal substances, paraphenalia, etc.
They might also be looking for evidence that someone else is living there. During my years in rental property management, we had many a “single mother” living with her boyfriend. They are mostly looking for anything masculine, and always check perscription pill bottles to see whose name is on the label.
Any evidence that the tenant is housing another person leads to their subsidy being cancelled.
It sounds like either the inspector or their boss has decided they are in loco parentis to the renters (there’s a reason it says “loco”), and decided to inspect for everything and anything; or they are simply nasty people who enjoy making others squirm.
Can look for and call the tenant down on evidence of:
-poor nutrition - call child and family services for child abuse
-buying over and above their “lifestyle” expenses, evidence of extra income or sugar daddy
-job-related material or clothes to suggest extra income
-nice new toys, call the police on suspicion of stolen goods
-damage to property - excuse to evict
-drug use, drug paraphanalia (did they search for burnt knife blades too?)
-alcohol which could be used to claim the tenant is an alcoholic, evict and call child and family services, etc.
-male guests or the stuff they left behind, which can be twisted into "have unreported live-in partner
-abuse of prescrition narcotics
-inappropriate videos or reading material which can be twisted nto inappropriate lifestyle, call child and family services.
-political leanings counter to inspectors, which will encourage inspector to find any reason to pick on them
-evidence of an interest or hobby that can be twisted into “this person neglects the kids” or “inappropriate lifestyle”.
Basically, if Nosey Parker wants to be a total Dick, they can make your life hell. Unless ACLU is ready and willing to be on call 24-7, this person will make your life hell if you challenge them (first rule of Dicks) especially if their boss is similarly inclined. They’ve heard of every angle of how to mess up a person’s life just because they can, starting with screwing up your housing and government payouts.
The fact that they are not only inspecting everything but also taking photos suggests they are fishing for anything. Maybe they have a friend who needs a nice subsidized apartment, so someone has to go.
I would suggest the ACLU approach would not be to challenge the particular visit - but first find out if others have the same experience, or is your friend the only one getting the treatement. If it seems to be common, then (if such a thing exists) the can file for a freedom of information act request on the policy and any emails relating to enforcement of such a policy. Having someone with clout poking around their private emails may sober them up or rile them up. Then take that information to what passes for a liberal in the state assembly.
I am not Junior Modding here; I’m asking a question.
The above post would make an outstanding OP in GD. As it stands, it seems inappropriate for GQ, as making allegationsw about motivations without any substantiation. My question is, Do you have any evidence that what you allege is either statutorialy or regulatorily permitted, or else is the common practice in Idaho?