COURT ALLOWS EVICTIONS OF TENANTS UNAWARE OF RELATIVES' DRUG USE

SAN FRANCISCO - A public housing tenant can be evicted for a
household member's drug use even if the tenant was unaware of it, a
federal appeals court ruled Monday.

The federal government's "one-strike" eviction policy, which applies
to more than 3 million low-income tenants nationwide, is a reasonable
step toward making public housing safe and drug-free, said the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 2-1 ruling, one of a handful of court decisions on the issue,
overturned a federal judge's 1988 order that barred the Oakland
Housing Authority from evicting tenants because of their housemates'
off-premises drug activities -- activities the tenant knew nothing
about.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said such evictions did not appear
to be authorized by federal law and would not discourage drug crimes.
But the appeals court said the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's policy was legally authorized and aimed at "preventing
tenants from turning a blind eye to the conduct of a household member
or guest."

Requiring local housing agencies to prove that a tenant knew or should
have known of a household member's illegal drug activity "would
hamstring (agencies') efforts to rid public housing of the crime and
violence with which low-income families must cope on a daily basis,"
said the opinion by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain.

Dissenting Judge William Fletcher said the eviction policy "deprives
innocent people of property that was not involved in any crime and
punishes innocent people for crimes that they did not commit and could
not prevent." He said HUD had exceeded the scope of the federal law on
drug-related evictions.

The law, passed in 1988, said drug-related criminal activity on or
near public housing property by a tenant, a household member or a
"guest or other person under the tenant's control" was grounds for
eviction.

In adopting regulations in 1991, HUD used similar wording but refused
to exempt tenants who were unaware of the drug activity. The
regulations do not require evictions but leave the decision up to each
of the more than 3,000 local housing agencies.

The Oakland case involved evictions of four residents, who have been
allowed to keep their apartments because of Breyer's injunction.

One 63-year-old woman's mentally disabled daughter was alleged to have
possessed cocaine three blocks from the apartment, without her
mother's knowledge. Two tenants, aged 71 and 63, had grandsons who
lived with them and were alleged to have possessed marijuana in a
parking lot.

The fourth tenant was a 75-year-old disabled man whose caretaker
allegedly possessed cocaine in the apartment. The tenant was twice
given notice of the drug activity but said his partial paralysis and
need for a caretaker limited his options.

The court said the wording of the law showed that Congress assumed
household members and guests were under a tenant's "control" and
intended to let HUD and local agencies decide the scope of evictions.

Just as parents can be held legally responsible for their children's
actions, a "no-fault" eviction policy can be imposed "to encourage
tenants to monitor the conduct of their household members and guests,"
wrote O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Joseph Sneed.

Gary Lafayette, lawyer for the Oakland Housing Authority, said the
ruling should send a message to drug-users that their loved ones could
be affected.

Ira Jacobowitz, lawyer for the tenants, did not return a telephone
call.

The case is Rucker vs. Davis, 98-16322.