Landlord’s right to inspect leased premises does not permit him to admit law enforcement officers to aid in the inspection

Landlord’s right to inspect leased premises does not permit him to admit law enforcement officers to aid in the inspection. Blanchard v. Lonero, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78506 (E.D. La. October 22, 2007):

The lease does give the landlord the right to inspect the property during regular business hours; however, the lease does not authorize the landlord to consent to a search of the premises by law enforcement personnel. Courts have consistently recognized that a landlord does not have authority to admit others to a premises without the consent of the tenant. See Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616, 81 S.Ct. 776, 779-80, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961); see also Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 111, 126 S. Ct. 1515, 1522, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006). Because the Loneros’ contractual right to inspect the property did not extend to the right to admit law enforcement officers to search the property, the motion to dismiss is denied.

Plaintiff refused to stop, so he was not seized by the defendant officers. Lewis v. Wilcox, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78450 (M.D. Ga. October 22, 2007).*

Park ranger during a traffic jam heard a commotion from one vehicle and went to see about it and asked general questions. It was merely a consensual encounter. Then he reasonably suspected the occupants were under the influence, and he saw an open container in violation of 36 C.F.R § 4.14(b). United States v. Ownby, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78288 (E.D. Tenn. October 19, 2007).*

Reviewing the videotape of defendant’s driving, the court cannot conclude that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop. United States v. Pace, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78286 (E.D. Tenn. October 18, 2007).*

2255 petitioner did not show that defense counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress consent granted by one with apparent authority when the moving papers and affidavit in support did not mention that defense counsel was ever informed of this, even if it was meritorious, which the court does not accept. Smith v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78272 (E.D. N.C. October 17, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.