Florida Legal Services Fights Crackdown on Public Housing Crime
Florida legal services lawyers are suing the Sanford public housing
authority for adopting a tough policy that requires the speedy eviction
of tenants who engage in drug dealing and other criminal activity. Under
the new guidelines, any tenant who is arrested is given a warning and required
to attend counseling. Eviction is only initiated if the tenant commits
a second offense. The policy also imposes a curfew on children under 17,
requires all non-residents to leave by 11 p.m. and bans unlawful gatherings
of people in which drug deals will take place. Housing attorney Clay Simmons
said the rules are intended to make tenants more responsible and to hold
them accountable if they or their guests are charged with a crime. The
policy was implemented 18 months ago at the suggestion of the tenants themselves
who wanted a safer place to live. However, Central Florida Legal Services
has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality
of the quick eviction rules. Legal services attorneys claim that the rules
violate tenants’ rights to free speech and to assemble with their neighbors.
Responded attorney Simmons, “This is something that most of the residents
wanted and like. They like the idea that the housing authority is helping
to make a safer, more orderly place for them to live.”
See Elaine Backhaus, “Housing Rules Face Test,” The Orlando
Sentinel, Nov. 19, 1997, pg. D1
Texas Legal Aid Lawyers Fight Drug-Related Eviction
This year, the Laredo Legal Aid Society tried to stop the eviction of
a drug criminal from Laredo public housing despite overwhelming evidence
of his guilt. At the criminal trial of Felipe Hinojosa, a police officer
testified that he attempted to arrest Hinojosa for cocaine possession about
three blocks away from his public housing residence. Hinojosa initially
escaped the arrest attempt but was later apprehended and charged with illegal
drug possession and evading arrest. Housing officials then started eviction
proceedings against Hinojosa pursuant to its policy of terminating the
tenancy of any tenant who engages in criminal activity on or near the Housing
Authority’s property. However, Laredo Legal Aid filed suit to stop the
eviction. Legal Aid argued that Hinojosa could not be evicted for engaging
in illegal drug activity near the premises because the housing authority’s
definition of illegal drug activity only included the sale and distribution
of drugs, not possession. Likewise, he could not be evicted for evading
arrest because that too was not specifically cited as the type of crime
for which a tenant could be evicted. Noting that Legal Aid’s arguments
“defy logic,” a Texas appeals court upheld the eviction. The court held
that the Housing authority meant that all criminal activity, not just selling
and distributing drugs, is a legitimate basis to evict a tenant.
See Hinojosa v. Housing Auth. of the City of Laredo, 940 S.W.2d
763, Tex. App. Ct., 1997
Court Criticizes TRLA for Filing Frivolous Lawsuit
In 1996, Texas Rural Legal Aid tried to get unemployment benefits for
a man justly fired for incompetence. The man in question, Esteban Rodriguez,
worked for a grocery store. One morning, the store asked that he clock
in five minutes early to help a customer with her groceries. Rodriguez
refused for which the store manager fired him. The state denied Rodriquez’
unemployment application on the grounds that it was his own incompetence
that got him fired. In its lawsuit, TRLA claimed that it was “an unconscionable
act” for the employer to require that Rodriquez punch in early to help
a customer. Although Rodriquez would have been paid for the extra five
minutes, TRLA asserted that the store expected him to work for free. TRLA
even went so far as to argue that the store violated federal Fair Labor
Standards laws and Thirteenth amendment prohibitions against involuntary
servitude. A Texas appeals court handily rejected TRLA’s frivolous claims.
The court admonished TRLA for its handling of the case, noting that as
a “publicly funded legal services agency” TRLA should “take care to see
that its scarce resources -- and the resources of this Court -- are expended
wisely.”
See Rodriquez v. Texas Employment Commission, 936 S.W.2d 67,
Tex. App. Ct., 1996