Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2012 1 Volume 6 1 No. 5 Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, they claimed that before conducting an inspection of the Property, the ZEO was required to obtain a warrant supported by a find- ing of probable cause. DECISION: Reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Connecticut held zoning inspections are "searches" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As such, ad- ministrative searches of residences must comply with the Fourth Amend- ment. When a proposed search is not part of a periodic or area inspec- tion program, but is a targeted search, the search must be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. This requirement is satisfied "when a ju- dicial officer orders a search upon a showing by municipal authorities that probable cause exists to believe that a zoning violation will be dis- covered upon inspection of the premises," said the court. The court explained that a zoning inspection would not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as it was "reasonable." While general, routine, area zoning inspections, required only a "relaxed" probable cause show- ing of a "valid public interest," the court said that a targeted administra- tive search —such as in the case at hand—"demand[ed] a more particular- ized showing of probable cause ... ." The court said this more traditional standard of probable cause was required in targeted zoning inspections "in order to properly `safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interfer- ences with privacy and from unfounded charges' while simultaneously pro- viding 'fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection."' The court held that before a court may issue an order permitting a zoning enforcement officer to enter and search a particular property, there must be: "a preliminary showing of facts within the knowledge of the zoning officer and of which that officer has reasonably trustworthy information that are sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that conditions constituting a violation of the zoning ordinances are present on the subject property." The court also concluded that "an injunction is an appropriate proce- dural vehicle through which a municipality may seek judicial authoriza- tion to conduct a zoning inspection." See also: Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Fran- cisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967). See also: Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949). Case Note: Because the trial court had not applied the correct stan- dard in making its finding of probable cause, the appellate court re- versed the trial court's judgment. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 5