The city made the requisite showing for issuance of an administrative warrant for a housing inspection. The court declines to interpret the state constitution more broadly than the Fourth Amendment on this issue. The privacy interests of the tenants must also be respected, and they get a right to be heard. In re An Admin. Search Warrant v. Wiebesick, 2017 Minn. LEXIS 424 (July 19, 2017). Syllabus by the court:
1. There is no principled basis for interpreting Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution differently than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the context of an administrative search warrant to conduct a rental housing inspection. Such a warrant, when issued by a district court and satisfying an ordinance containing reasonable standards, need not be supported by individualized suspicion of a code violation.
2. On a petition for an administrative search warrant to conduct a rental housing inspection, and absent an emergency or other compelling need, tenants shall be given notice of the petition and the opportunity to be heard at a hearing. At such a hearing, the district court shall consider whether the warrant should include reasonable restrictions on the inspection, including timing, scope, and participants, to protect the tenants’ privacy interests.
From the opinion:
For at least half a century, federal constitutional law has been clear: an administrative search warrant need not be supported by individualized suspicion of a code violation to justify an unconsented-to rental housing inspection. Camara v. Mun. Court, 387 U.S. 523, 538, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967). Such an administrative warrant satisfies the probable cause requirement in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution “if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling.” Id. Appellants invite us to be the first state supreme court to depart from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Camara and hold that Minnesota’s constitution requires more: probable cause of the sort required in a criminal investigation. We decline their invitation and affirm the court of appeals. But we make clear that, to protect tenants’ privacy interests, administrative search warrant procedures must include notice, an opportunity to be heard, and judicial consideration of reasonable restrictions on the inspection.