Today the ACLU of Northern California, Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability, and Tenants Together issued a letter to the Fresno city council alerting the council and the public to potential civil rights violations in the proposed routine inspection ordinance. This ordinance was drafted after the community demanded that the city enforce habitability laws in Fresno and address the slum conditions tenants have been suffering under. Instead, the council has proposed a "nuisance" ordinance that places blame for bad conditions on tenants instead of landlords.
Highlights from the letter:
"...the Ordinance is riddled with vague and overly broad language which chills basic constitutional freedoms. As it is unclear whether the City has reviewed the proposed revisions with a deep analysis, the likely result of these changes will target the City’s most vulnerable residents."
"Tenants and occupants can be cited for “making or continuing, or causing to be made and continued, of any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.” §10-708(e). The Ordinance’s ban on loud noises at all times is unconstitutional. See In re Brown, 9 Cal. 3d 612, 620 (1973) (reasoning “the manner limitation, ‘loud,’ is so broad as to amount to a total prohibition on loud public speech.”). Additionally, the term “unnecessary or unusual noise” is likely unconstitutionally vague. See Jim Crockett Promotion, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 706 F.2d 486, 489 (4th Cir. 1983) (ordinance prohibiting “unnecessary noise” held unconstitutionally vague.). For example, individuals playing music that residents have never heard could be considered “unusual or unnecessary” with this broad definition. Indeed, the Ordinance’s description of “unusual or unnecessary noise” invites many similar hypothetical applications which render the Ordinance unconstitutionally overbroad. No person can have adequate notice as to what an “unnecessary or unusual” noise is under the Ordinance."
"...the Ordinance undermines law enforcement efforts by penalizing calls for help. The proposed Ordinance can punish any person habitually causing a “juvenile or domestic disturbance” “call.” §10-708(g)(5). This Ordinance will disproportionately impact victims of domestic violence who may feel forced to remain silent in fear of the severe penalties the City seeks to enforce."
Thank you to the ACLU of Northern California for drafting this detailed response to the Fresno ordinance.
The full letter is attached below.
