PA Court Strikes Down Housing Warrants Without Probable Cause

Overview: Commonwealth Court Says “No” to Suspicionless Administrative Warrants

May a municipality obtain an administrative warrant to conduct housing code inspections absent probable cause of a violation? The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently answered that question in the negative. In Rivera v. Borough of Pottstown, 2025 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 207 (Dec. 9, 2025), the Commonwealth Court reaffirmed the enduring protections of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which has safeguarded private property rights since 1790. This decision clarifies that constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches extend to administrative inspections, requiring municipalities to demonstrate probable cause before entering private residences.

Pottstown’s Housing Ordinance: Biennial Inspections and Administrative Warrants

In 2015, the Borough of Pottstown enacted amendments to its housing ordinances, which modified provisions of the Borough Code governing rental properties. Among other requirements, the Code mandates that each residential unit be inspected biennially, upon a property transfer, upon receipt of a complaint alleging a violation, or when there is reasonable cause to believe a violation is occurring. The Code further provides that, if a property owner refuses to permit such an inspection, the Licensing and Inspections Officer may seek an administrative warrant to enter and inspect the premises.

The Property Owners’ Lawsuit: Privacy and Freedom from Unreasonable Searches

Several property owners sued the Borough, asserting that its use of administrative search warrants to conduct rental inspections violated their constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Their challenge focused on the Borough’s practice of seeking warrants without demonstrating individualized probable cause of housing code violations, a practice they argued was fundamentally incompatible with Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Among other relief, the property owners asked the trial court to declare the code provisions authorizing administrative warrants without individualized probable cause unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied to their properties, the opinion said.

The trial court initially granted the Borough’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On appeal, however, the Commonwealth Court vacated that decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings to develop a complete evidentiary record, as noted in the opinion.

Summary Judgment and Borough Admissions

Once remanded, the parties completed discovery and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In the Borough’s motion for summary judgment, it argued that the code provisions do not violate the constitutional rights of the property owners and that the Borough was, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the opinion said.

Comparatively, in the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the property owners, they argued that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the code provisions authorizing administrative warrants for biennial rental inspections without individualized probable cause violated their rights under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the opinion said.

In presenting their argument, the Borough admitted that it had submitted affidavits in support of its applications for administrative warrants which did not contain individualized probable cause of code violations, the opinion said.

Rather, the Borough clarified that affidavits it has submitted in the past merely stated that the Borough was denied permission to enter a rental property to conduct a biennial inspection, and that the Code both requires and authorizes administrative warrants, the opinion said. The Borough also acknowledged that its Code does not require “that the owner or occupant of a residence be notified of the date and time of execution of the warrant”, the opinion said.

The trial court, after analyzing both Federal and Pennsylvania jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, concluded that the code provisions were facially valid, the opinion said. However, the trial court found that the Borough’s actions violated the rights of the property owners under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the opinion said. Ultimately, the trial court enjoined the Borough from conducting suspicionless rental inspections unless and until appropriate amendments were made to its Code, the opinion said.

The litigants appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Commonwealth Court, the opinion said.

Commonwealth Court’s Analysis and Decision

Amongst other issues on appeal, the Commonwealth Court had the task of determining whether administrative search warrants can be issued on less than individualized probable cause, the opinion said.

The Commonwealth Court first turned to the language of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides in relevant part that “[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place . . . shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.”

After performing a brief review of federal jurisprudence in the context of the Fourth Amendment, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that Pennsylvania courts interpreting provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution are not bound by such decisions which interpret similar, yet distinct, federal constitutional provisions, the opinion said.

Therefore, the Commonwealth Court needed to consider whether the Pennsylvania Constitution provided greater protections than the United States Constitution.

The Commonwealth Court performed a thorough review of the history of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which it noted has been virtually untouched for two hundred years. Specifically, the Commonwealth Court pointed out that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures existed in Pennsylvania more than a decade before the adoption of the federal constitution.

Before rendering its decision, the Commonwealth Court emphasized the fact that Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution was specifically designed to prevent the issuance of a warrant on anything less than individualized probable cause. Additionally, the Commonwealth Court reiterated that a citizen’s privacy interests are highest in one’s home.

With those considerations in mind, the Commonwealth Court reasoned that the Borough is engaging in searches which must be supported by probable cause. However, the Commonwealth Court felt that the Borough’s biennial rental inspection warrants were, at best, based on generalized suspicions.

Therefore, the Commonwealth Court concluded that the code provisions authorizing administrative warrants for biennial rental inspections on less than individualized probable cause are facially unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

With the Commonwealth Court’s ruling in Rivera, municipalities across Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, must carefully reevaluate housing inspection programs that rely on administrative warrants without individualized probable cause. For property owners in Philadelphia, this decision provides a clear roadmap to challenge similar ordinances that authorize routine or suspicionless inspections of rental units. The Commonwealth Court’s emphasis on Article I, Section 8 underscores that privacy protections in Pennsylvania are more robust than those under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, meaning local governments cannot sidestep constitutional requirements through administrative processes. As cities continue to balance public safety with property rights, expect increased litigation testing the limits of municipal authority and renewed scrutiny of housing codes that prioritize efficiency over constitutional compliance.

Need help fighting rental inspections without probable cause? Contact our team today to protect your property rights.

This article was prepared by a licensed Pennsylvania attorney at Nochumson P.C., a Philadelphia-based law firm with extensive experience in all thing's real estate, litigation, land use and zoning, and business counseling.

Reprinted with permission from The Legal Intelligencer © 2025 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382, reprints@alm.com or visit www.almreprints.com.