DRUG EVICTIONS UPHELD

High Court Upholds Evictions For Drugs

OK To Toss Families From Public Housing

In a closely watched case out of Oakland, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld regulations yesterday that allow federal housing officials to
evict an entire household if even one member is arrested for a drug
violation.

The 8-to-0 decision, covering 3 million residents of public housing
nationwide, upholds the zero tolerance drug policy adopted by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1991.

The policy is so tough that family members can be evicted regardless
of whether they had prior knowledge of the offender's drug
activities. In addition, the whole household can be tossed out if a
guest is arrested for drugs.

Local housing authorities and advocacy groups nationwide hailed the
ruling as a means of protecting residents from the scourge of drugs
and believe it has broad implications for national housing and drug
policies.

"This is a great victory for families in public housing," said HUD
spokeswoman Nancy Segerdahl. "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."

The zero tolerance policy at issue became law in 1988 amid complaints
that drug-related crime was making government housing increasingly
dangerous.

The law allows, but does not require, local housing authorities to
evict tenants for drug activity by relatives or guests -- even if it
occurs outside of federal housing projects. HUD did not implement the
policy until 1991.

Oakland Woman Challenged Law

Oakland resident Pearlie Rucker, 63, challenged the law in 1996 when
the Oakland Housing Authority moved to evict her because her mentally
disabled daughter had been arrested on drug charges three blocks away.

Rucker remained a plaintiff after the Housing Authority dropped its
eviction proceedings when her daughter left home.

The other plaintiffs included Willie Lee, 71, and Barbara Hill, 63.
Both had grandsons who were allegedly caught with marijuana in the
parking lot outside their building on Shafter Avenue.

The Housing Authority ordered the fourth plaintiff, Herman Walker,
who is 75 and disabled, from his home after warning him three times
that his caretaker had possessed cocaine.

Federal District Judge Charles Breyer issued an injunction barring
the evictions in 1998. (His brother, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G.
Breyer, recused himself from the case.)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided in
January 2001 that the law did not authorize the eviction of innocent
tenants. A contrary view, the court ruled, would lead to "absurd"
results and constitutional problems.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

"It is not 'absurd' that a local housing authority may sometimes
evict a tenant who had no knowledge of the drug-related activity,"
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in the court's opinion. ". .
. Strict liability maximizes deterrence and eases enforcement
difficulties."

Critics Warn Of Homelessness

Critics warned that the zero tolerance policy will increase
homelessness by sending innocent tenants packing. They also predicted
that eviction fears will keep families from seeking help for
relatives battling addiction.

"If you can think of a policy that is least likely to ensure and
promote the safety and welfare of families, this is it," said Dan
Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for Drug Policy Alliance, an
organization advocating reform of the nation's drug policies.

The decision reinforced the Supreme Court's recent hard line against
drugs and came one week after justices indicated they were willing to
allow broader use of drug testing in schools.

In its ruling, the court found no objection to a federal law allowing
the eviction of tenants if relatives living with them are arrested
for drug crimes.

As a landlord, Rehnquist said, the government has the authority to
regulate tenants' activities.

Quoting Congress, Rehnquist wrote, "with drugs leading to murders,
muggings and other forms of violence against the tenants," aggressive
eviction policies are justified.

Hill, one of the Oakland plaintiffs, said last night that she was
disappointed by the ruling but remains hopeful that, after four years
with no trouble, she will be allowed to remain in the apartment she
has called home for 30 years.

"There's nothing we can do anymore," she said. "We tried to fight
this as hard as we could and now we've lost. All we can do is just
hope they'll let us stay.

"We've tried to be good neighbors to everyone around us for 30 years.
My grandson got caught with the wrong people one night. I don't think
they should kick us out for that one mistake."

San Francisco attorney Paul Renne, who argued the case before the
high court on behalf of the plaintiffs, called the ruling as "a very
simplistic approach." He said he was disappointed 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 see anyone trying to
revoke his mortgage exemption."

The Oakland Housing Authority, which oversees 3,300 apartments,
applauded the decision.

"Now that we have the Supreme Court to back us up we will be able to
use every tool available to evict people who violate the law and make
it unsafe for families," said agency spokeswoman Lily Toney.

Rucker no longer faces eviction, but the fate of the other plaintiffs
remains unclear. Jon Gresley, executive director of the Oakland
Housing Authority, said he will personally review each case and may
decide evictions are no longer warranted.

"These are all old cases -- it may be that we don't proceed," Gresley
said. "Typically if we file for an eviction, we may not follow
through if we get some cooperation and see some changes."

The Housing Authority often uses the threat of eviction as a last-
ditch effort to get tenants to address problems, he said.

Chronicle staff writer Bob Egelko contributed to this report.