Pubdate: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Copyright: 2002 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 Author: Jim Herron Zamora TOP COURT UPHOLDS PUBLIC HOUSING EVICTIONS If Drugs Suspected, Tenants Can Be Thrown Out In a decision that gives public agencies sweeping powers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the city of Oakland can evict entire families from public housing for drug use by one member. The 8-0 ruling, which affects more than 3 million poor residents of federally funded housing nationwide, upholds the so-called one-strike provision adopted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1991. In an opinion written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court ruled it did not object to a federal law that allows public housing tenants to be evicted if a family member who resides in the unit is arrested on drug charges. "It is not absurd that a local Housing Authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity," Rehnquist wrote. The chief justice said that even if tenants were unaware of the alleged drug use, they could still be held responsible for not controlling narcotics crimes of family members. Rehnquist wrote that the government, as a landlord, is within its legal authority to control the activities of its tenants. The ruling upholds the "one-strike" law, passed by Congress in 1988 amid complaints about drug-related crime in public housing. But the one strike provision was not enforced until the mid-1990s. HUD says the rules apply no matter when or where the wrongdoing took place. Government lawyers told the court a relative's possession of a marijuana cigarette 3,000 miles away would be enough to warrant an eviction. "This is a great victory for families in public housing who want to be free from those who infiltrate their community with drugs or commit violent crimes, " said Nancy Segerdahl, a HUD spokeswoman in Washington. "As the Supreme Court said, a tenant who cannot control drug-related crime by a household member, threatens the health and safety of all residents." Critics of the law said the Supreme Court should have recognized that the evictions are too harsh, particularly in cases in which an elderly person faces eviction for the drug use of a family member outside the home. In such cases, critics argue, a head of household can be punished for actions for which they had no control or knowledge. "They took a very simplistic approach," Paul Renne, the attorney who argued the case before the high court for the tenants, said today. Renne said he was disappointed that the justices "took a cavalier approach to a serious issue." "There's a double standard that if you are poor and it's related to drugs, you have no rights," Renne said. "In Florida, Gov. (Jeb) Bush's daughter has a drug problem and you don't seen anyone trying to revoke his mortgage exemption. "These people do not have any other options other than public housing. The middle-class has all kinds of benefits and no one says that if someone in your family has a drug problem, you can be evicted." Oakland City Attorney John Russo declined comment today. Gary T. Lafayette, a private attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court, could not be reached today. The court's ruling will affect anyone who lives in public housing, but the attention in this case is on senior citizens who could be oblivious to younger family members' drug use. More than 1.7 million families headed by people over age 61 live in government-subsidized housing, according court papers filed by the plaintiffs. All four plaintiffs are Oakland residents over age 60 who have younger relatives accused of drug use or possession. Most of the cases involve suspected activities outside the family home. None of the four plaintiffs could be reached for comment today. The lead plaintiff, Pearlie Rucker, became the subject of an eviction proceeding notice after her mentally disabled daughter was arrested on drug charges in 1998 three blocks away from the apartment. Rucker remained a plaintiff even though the Oakland Housing Authority decided not to evict the family after her daughter successfully completed drug treatment, Renne said. "The other plaintiffs can only hope for mercy," Renne said. Two of the plaintiffs, Barbara Hill and Willie Lee, live in an eight- unit public housing building at 5120 Shafter Ave. in the Rockridge district. In both those cases, a grandchild was accused of marijuana possession outside the Housing Authority property. To fight eviction, the Hill family even presented Oakland officials with a petition signed by homeowners who were neighbors of the apartment building. A man answering Hill's phone said today her family was disappointed with the court's decision and worried about her fate and wished to keep a low profile. The fourth plaintiff, Herman Walker, said earlier that he joined the suit after his caretaker had been cited for hiding crack pipes at his apartment. 'It's just an unfair deal," Walker said in 1998. "I'm not responsible for what people have on them. It's not right." The evictions of all four tenants were put on hold until all the legal appeals were exhausted. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of the tenants, saying the federal law on which the policy was based was not intended to drive out innocent tenants -- for example, those who were unaware that a relative living in the apartment possessed drugs somewhere else. Although the plaintiffs are from Oakland public housing, groups nationwide have followed the case. Similar lawsuits are pending in other courts. "The only way they can get away with it is because it affects poor people," Sheila Crowley, head of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said today. Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the ruling because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, ruled in the tenants' favor in 1998 and issued an injunction prohibiting the Oakland Housing Authority, which has about 5,000 residents, from making drug-related evictions without proof that the tenant was aware of the illegal activity. The Associated Press contributed to this report. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh