In February 2021, Orange City adopted “Ordinance No. 825.” One of the provisions allowed for periodical inspections of rental properties. The provision further stated that “If entry is refused the inspector shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry, including, but not limited to, obtaining an administrative search warrant to search the rental unit.”
After the ordinance was passed, owners and renters (“citizens”) of the rental properties were notified. Shortly after, citizens protested that they would “not voluntarily allow” inspections of their rental homes. Citizens asserted a facial challenge against the ordinance and cited a violation of article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.” The citizens argued that the ordinance permits the City to seek warrants but does not expressly require the City to show probable cause. After the lawsuit was filed, the City and the citizens filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied the City’s motion and granted the citizens’ motion.
Upon review, the Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with the district court’s ruling. The Iowa Supreme Court held that in a facial challenge, the challenger must show that no application of the ordinance could be constitutional under any set of facts. The Court further asserted that the ordinance expressly permits private inspectors to conduct the required inspections. In doing so, no city official will be conducting the inspection. If no city official needs to perform the inspection, there would be no need for an administrative warrant. Therefore, the inspections can operate without violating article I, section 8. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded.