DURHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY: CLOSE CALL FOR AN INNOCENT TENANT

District Court Judge Marcia Morey did justice a good turn when she refused
to permit the eviction of a McDougald Terrace woman and her children who
were unwittingly caught up in a failed drug bust on her back porch. The
Durham Housing Authority (DHA) had sought the removal under a
zero-tolerance policy that allows people in public housing to be summarily
evicted if any family member or guest is involved in drug activity -
whether the head of the household knows about it or not.

In this case, Jackie Kersey didn't know about the incident that occurred on
her back porch after an unidentified man knocked on her door and asked her
to braid his hair. Kersey braids hair to pick up extra income, but she told
the man the hour was too late. The man left, but an undercover police
officer reportedly tagged him in a drug sting on Kersey's back porch.
Realizing what was happening, the man fled. Police didn't catch him.

Shortly after the incident, DHA told Kersey she would be evicted because
she knew the man was involved in drug activity.

But she didn't know what had happened, and a Durham magistrate agreed with
her. The Housing Authority appealed the magistrate's decision to district
court, where Judge Morey properly ruled in Kersey's favor. The man was not
a visitor in Kersey's dwelling nor was he a guest. She had no control over
him. One could hardly find a better case to illustrate how unfair a
zero-tolerance policy can be against an innocent tenant.

DHA Director James Tabron had trouble deciding how to come down on the
issue. First, he told The Herald-Sun that in the Kersey case, "we really
wished the outcome had been different." Then, he said zero tolerance,
affirmed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, "is clearly not an absolute
application."

But wasn't zero tolerance being applied against Jackie Kersey, no matter
the facts in the case? Judge Morey thought so. In fairness, the Durham
Housing Authority has generally used good judgment in evictions, which run
about 35 to 50 a year, usually for nonpayment of rent. This time, though,
an astute magistrate and a district court judge averted a serious
injustice. If they could see it so easily, the Durham Housing Authority
should have seen it, too.