Challenge to a city’s housing-code inspection rules; Standing; Whether plaintiff established an “injury” to support his claim under the Fourth Amendment’s “unconstitutional-conditions” doctrine; Stavrianoudakis v US Fish & Wildlife Serv (9th Cir); Warrantless administrative search; City of Los Angeles v Patel; Choice between consenting to an inspection or forgoing a license; Whether the proposed search was “reasonable” as a condition of a discretionary benefit or privilege; Wyman v James; Equal protection claim

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that plaintiff-Herschfus had standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim against defendant-City of Oak Park where he established an “injury”—the City denied him a landlord license only because he insisted that it get a warrant before inspecting his properties. But he could not succeed on the merits – the court held that the City’s licensing regime did not violate the Fourth Amendment. His equal protection claim also failed. Herschfus owns rental properties in Oak Park. He used to operate under a license pursuant to the City’s housing code, but when it came up for renewal, he would not sign the consent form authorizing any new inspection. Despite not receiving a new license, he continued renting his properties. The City eventually issued him third-time infraction notices, which carry misdemeanor charges. He sued. The district court granted the City summary judgment. On appeal, the court first addressed standing and held that Herschfus established an injury where he alleged he was denied “a landlord license only because he wouldn’t waive his Fourth Amendment rights and insisted that the city get a warrant before inspecting his property. That qualifies as an injury.” Additionally, he incurred substantial fines for renting without a license. But the court held that the case failed on the merits. An exception to the warrant requirement “applies when a search’s ‘primary purpose’ is ‘[d]istinguishable from the general interest in crime control’ and requiring a warrant with probable cause would be impracticable.” This case was an “unconstitutional-conditions case” because the City has repeatedly requested that Herschfus “authorize an initial inspection as a condition of receiving a landlord license” and it was the choice “between consenting to an inspection or forgoing a license” that he protested, Under the Fourth Amendment, the question is “whether a proposed search is reasonable as a condition of a discretionary benefit or privilege.” The court found that precedent such as Wyman resolved this case – “Oak Park’s licensing regime does not impose an unreasonable or unconstitutional condition.” It also rejected Herschfus’s equal protection claim. He alleged that the City’s housing code discriminates against landlords of one- and two-family rentals but leaves “owner-occupied homes and larger multi-unit rentals less regulated.” The court held that the classification of one- and two-family rental units was “drawn with no suspect lines” and also bore “‘a rational relation’ to the legitimate ends of public health and safety.” Affirmed.