FOR NOW, JUDGE RULES HOUSING AUTHORITY CAN'T EVICT TENANTS FOR OUTSIDE
CRIMES

In a preliminary blow to the federal government's controversial "one-strike"
eviction policy, a federal judge has temporarily stopped the Oakland Housing
Authority from evicting tenants for outside crimes committed by household
members.

The federal policy, which began as a 1996 election-year pledge by President
Clinton to crack down on those who "are destroying the lives of decent
tenants," has been used to evict low-income residents based on the conduct
of family or friends, in or outside federally funded housing.

The ruling issued Friday by District Court Judge Charles Breyer is temporary
and applies only to the Oakland Housing Authority. However, the preliminary
injunction is significant because it may be the first time a federal judge
has moved to block an eviction under "one strike."

In his ruling, Breyer barred the Oakland Housing Authority from ousting
tenants for outside drug activities of household members until a lawsuit
filed by four elderly and disabled tenants against the agency is resolved.

He indicated that in some cases enforcement of the law was unreasonable,
perhaps unconstitutional. Evicting innocent tenants "will not reduce
drug-related activity since the tenant has not engaged in such activity or
knowingly allowed such activity to occur," he said.

The judge said tenants evicted for the criminal activity of others outside
their apartments or control appeared to be "punished merely for their
association with the wrong-doer."

Anne Omura, attorney for the elderly and disabled plaintiffs, hailed the
ruling as a "significant victory."

She said efforts would be made to extend the ruling to cover tenants who had
no knowledge of criminal activity inside their apartments. The judge did not
rule against those evictions, stating that those tenants had some control
over activities in their household.

Gary Lafayette, attorney for the Oakland Housing Authority, said the agency
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had not decided
whether to appeal Breyer's ruling.

"This is a first-blush ruling, based on what plaintiffs alleged vs. what the
facts actually are," Lafayette said. "So those are issues we are going to
explore both with agency and HUD. What the court did was keep the case in
status quo position, until the issue is resolved." The plaintiffs: two
grandmothers, 71 and 63, whose grandsons allegedly possessed marijuana in a
parking lot; a 63-year-old woman whose mentally disabled daughter allegedly
possessed cocaine three blocks from her home; and a 75-year-old partially
paralyzed man whose caregiver and her friend were cited for possessing a
crack pipe and cocaine in his apartment.

1998 San Francisco Examiner

Checked-by: "Rolf Ernst"