Zoning search warrants to come up at Lynchburg council

Efforts to authorize Lynchburg’s zoning administrator to obtain court-issued search warrants gained another critic this week on the eve of a public hearing before City Council.

Mark Peake, a Lynchburg attorney and candidate for the Republican nomination in the 22nd state Senate District, issued a statement Monday condemning the proposal as a violation of privacy rights.

“In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we have long established beliefs that the privacy of our citizens is to be protected,” Peake said. “In this case the city zoning officials have overreached badly at a time when our citizens already are frustrated with rapidly expanding government at other levels. Enough is enough.”

The proposal before council, which will be put to a public hearing tonight, would allow the city’s zoning administrator to seek “inspection warrants” in cases where property owners refuse to consent to an inspection.

City officials say this would be a little-used tool; helpful in pursuing serious cases involving uncooperative property owners. The city attorney’s office says zoning administrators in Virginia actually had the authority to request warrants for at least three decades until a recent change was made in state law.

In 2008, the General Assembly passed a bill that allows zoning officials to seek inspection warrants only if the local zoning ordinance gives them the authority. Lynchburg’s currently does not.

Since the state law was revised, Lynchburg officials say a number of other Virginia communities, including Albemarle County, Arlington County and the City of Hampton, have amended their local ordinances to allow for inspection warrants.

Claudia Tucker, chairwoman of the Amherst County Board of Supervisors and a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 22nd Senate District, said Amherst is growing increasingly concerned about nuisance properties and unsafe living conditions.

“It’s one thing when adults want to live in squalor,” she said. “It’s another when children are brought into it … There are children who live in conditions that a pig should not live in.”

Tucker said the county attorney is developing a proposal to tighten the county’s inspections ordinance and ensure it has sufficient “teeth,” which she supported.

But when asked if she supports employing inspection warrants, she said she would want to look carefully at the language and consult with the sheriff and other stakeholders.

“I am a very strong personal property rights person,” she said. “I feel very strongly about that and about the constitution. I think you have to be very cautious that, in attempting to address one situation, you don’t have unintended consequences and end up creating another situation.”

But she added, “The bottom line is that if we’ve got people trying to circumvent the law and, in circumventing the law putting children at risk, then I think we need to do everything we can to address that.”

In Lynchburg, the planning commission unanimously endorsed the proposal in May after concluding warrants could be a useful tool and the courts would provide the needed checks-and-balances.

The measure has picked up increasing opposition since then, most notably from the Lynchburg Tea Party, which called the idea excessively intrusive and an unnecessary expansion of government.

Peake, the chairman of the Lynchburg Republican City Committee, said if the use of inspection warrants is approved, the city would “run the risk” of violating its citizens’ rights.

“Limited government means just that,” he said. “City Council needs to clearly understand that Lynchburg citizens will in no way, shape or form support this further erosion of their rights, privacy and their safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure.”

In a memo submitted to council, the city’s zoning office outlined the process it would follow prior to seeking a warrant.

The proposed policy states that inspections would only take place during normal business hours. The affidavit submitted for a warrant would describe the steps taken to secure the property owner’s consent and the response received.

If a warrant is granted, its execution will be supervised by the city attorney, the director of community development or their designee to ensure the inspection does not exceed the scope of the warrant.

In cases where inspectors are trying to determine if a household is exceeding residential occupancy limits — which state no more than three unrelated people can share a dwelling — only legal documentation will be used to determine if tenants are related.

The policy also states if a property owner or tenant has threatened a zoning official has been threatened, he or she may request a police officer accompany them during the inspection. The officer’s presence will be for safety purposes only, it says, and they will not participate in conducting the inspection.

Council will consider the inspection warrants proposal after a public hearing during its meeting tonight starting at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 900 Church St.