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.