Pubdate: Wed, 20 Feb 2002
Source: Alameda Times-Star (CA)
Copyright: 2002 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
Contact:  http://www.mapinc.org/media/731
Website: http://www.timesstar.com/
Author: Lisa Friedman, Washington Bureau 

COURT CAUSTIC IN DRUG EVICTIONS CASE 

Justices Criticize Argument Favoring Oakland Tenants 

WASHINGTON -- An attorney for four Oakland residents who were thrown out of
public housing because they could not control their relatives' drug use took
a verbal beating Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In a case that tests the national one-strike-and-you're-out policy for
federally subsidized housing, attorney Paul Renne argued that the law
allowing housing officials to evict an entire household because of one
member's drug use is fundamentally unfair. 

Tenants such as Pearlie Rucker, Willie Lee, Barbara Hill and Herman Walker
- -- all between the ages of 66 and 80 -- should at least be allowed to
proclaim their innocence before an eviction court, he argued. 

"The end result...is to throw them into the streets," Renne said, adding
that housing officials should not be "judge and jury as to whether innocent
tenants can summarily be evicted from their homes." 

But skeptical Supreme Court justices on Tuesday questioned why the tenants
should be treated differently than anyone else who breaks the conditions of
a lease. 

"The Housing Authority wants to put the responsibility on the tenants. It
seems to me perfectly reasonable," said Justice Antonin Scalia. 

The case pits officials who say they need broad leeway to purge public
housing of drugs against those who fear the tentacles of America's
zero-tolerance drug policy have extended too far. 

In 1998, Congress gave housing officials the authority to evict anyone
implicated in a drug infraction. But those laws were only occasionally
enforced until 1996, when then-President Clinton made a series of
tough-on-drugs campaign pledges. 

Since then, housing officials have interpreted the policy to mean that
tenants can be thrown out of their homes even if they are unaware of guests'
or relatives' actions, and even if the illegal activity takes place away
from public housing property. 

Rucker, 66, got an eviction notice from the Oakland Housing Authority after
her mentally disabled daughter was caught with cocaine three blocks from
their apartment. Lee, 73, and Hill, 67, were evicted when their respective
grandsons were caught smoking marijuana together in the complex's parking
lot. Walker, 79, was kicked out when his caretaker was caught using cocaine
in his apartment. 

"The Housing Authority needs the authority to act where it believes it needs
to act," said Gary Lafayette, a San Francisco attorney representing the
federal agency. 

Noting that Hill and Lee live in an eight-unit complex in a neighborhood of
single-family homes, Lafayette argued that smoking pot in the parking lot
"does not only affect members of the housing complex itself, it affects the
community at large." 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed sympathy for evicted tenants. 

The law, O'Connor said, "does seem to operate in a rather Draconian fashion.
One wonders why the government wants to take such an extreme position, even
though it lawfully could." 

But she and other justices noted that the law does not offer any exception
for innocent or ignorant tenants. 

Justices also appeared to dismiss the defendant's argument that tenants
should be allowed to argue their innocence before an eviction court. 

"You must afford them due process," Renne said. "These tenants have a right
to establish that they should not be punished because of somebody else's
conduct." 

Saying that the tenants bypassed normal eviction proceedings by filing a
lawsuit and emphasizing that the only issue before the court was whether
housing officials were being more aggressive than Congress intended, many
justices rejected Renne's reasoning as irrelevant. 

"You are challenging something that you have no standing to raise in this
court," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

"The argument is just extremely weak," said Chief Justice William Rehnquist. 

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Anthony Kennedy emphasized that the
zero-tolerance policy was clearly stated in the lease agreements that the
public housing tenants signed. 

"I guess I'm still puzzled why a tenant can sign a lease and then challenge
it," Kennedy said, asking Renne, "You think this is irrelevant, that the
tenants signed a lease?" 

Scalia noted that state laws allow the government to seize automobiles that
are used in drug offenses, whether or not the car owner knew about the
illegal activity. 

"Why is this any different?" he said, adding that housing tenants may have
even fewer rights because their homes belong to the government. 

Justice John Paul Stevens asked if there was any procedure to ensure that
housing officials do not abuse the policy. And Justice Clarence Thomas, who
is known for rarely questioning attorneys during oral arguments, asked
Lafayette to describe the extent of drug problems on public housing
property. 

According to Lafayette, more than a quarter of all drug arrests on or near
Oakland HUD property since 1978 occurred during the past year. 

After the hearing, Lafayette said officials don't know whether the
one-strike policy curtails drug behavior. 

After the housing authority moved to evict the four Oakland tenants, they
sued to keep their homes. 

Rucker, Lee, Walker and Hill will remain in their homes until the case is
resolved, which could be later this year. 

After a district court blocked the agency from terminating the leases, a
three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit appellate court upheld the eviction
policy. 

That ruling was withdrawn soon after when the court voted to rehear the case
with an 11-judge panel. In a 7-4 decision, that larger panel ruled in favor
of the tenants.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk