Dear Equal Access 2 Justice Commissions (EA2JC),
Due to the pandemic causing seismic shifts in the way our nation operates at all levels, it remains a comfort to know there are enough components in place for our Justice System to move various legal matter forward as expeditiously as possible despite the technology shifts, for as you know, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
For quite a few months now, RentersWelcome.com has been researching the legal system, law enforcement and social services as it relates to illegal lock-outs. With patchwork understanding of what jurisdiction has responsibility over such matters, it is the local law enforcement of a municipality that can be pulled into a potentially dangerous “he said, she said” for all parties involved.
As it stands, there is no clear mechanism connecting a local municipality with a legitimate eviction, let alone an eviction alleged to be legal. This disconnect has a relatively low price-point to correct in terms of actual logistics, but it is both policy and procedure that is currently failing all parties involved with the eviction process. And it is all parties that continue to fall short when it comes to actual illegal lock-outs.
Therefore, RentersWelcome.com is hereby offering a Reform Recommendation for all states across this nation to consider:
Every time a member of law enforcement performs an eviction based on information contained in a computer system, they are to immediately notify the municipality they performed the act in once it is finished, as well as leaving behind a copy of the paperwork they used to authorize the eviction.
Example 1: James and Jennifer are a young, married couple staying in an apartment for 6 months on a month to month verbal lease. When they went to make their next month’s rental payment to the landlord, they were given a piece of paper saying “You have been evicted. You have 24 hours to vacate the property before we change the locks.” The next day, both come home from work and discover the locks are changed.
Right now, James and Jennifer have virtually no recourse whatsoever with this event other than doing the best they can considering they just had their property literally stolen from them, along with their being forced into immediate homeless status, all because the property owner decided to display contempt for the process of law.
If the recommended rule was in place, local law enforcement and a municipality have various options and tools at their disposal to at least recognize the illegal lock-out as well as DOCUMENTING THE EVENT FOR THE PERSON WHO JUST HAD ALL OF THEIR POSSESSIONS STOLEN FROM THEM! It is a theft of property and leaving the victim with zero paperwork when they report it is simply Justice Denied. It’s basically saying to all property owners “Just go ahead and ignore all of the laws governing over the tenant/landlord relationship. No one will keep a record of what you do so nothing will go on your record.”
Example 2: Anita Edwards is a single woman staying in an apartment that started as a written lease and switched to a month to month verbal lease. Anita begins filing complaints with the municipality about the care of the property. The landlord filed eviction papers, she was served, she attended the court date and was told by the judge that the case was dismissed. Despite this dismissal, the records ended up reflecting a court date Anita was never informed of and paperwork reflecting an order for eviction being approved by a judge, representing an effort on the part of the landlord to illegally take possession of the property by skipping over steps and ignoring notice of motions brought. Because of a gap in data entry timing, the eviction papers end up proceeding through the system and law enforcement comes out and allows the landlord to change the locks.
Unlike an illegal lock-out that occurs because a landlord does not initiate any legal process, this situation allows bad actors to access law enforcement services to perform the illegal lock-out and even with the amount of paperwork and proof Anita has that a future court date has been assigned, it is an additional measure of victimization at the hands of law enforcement, unknowingly as it might be caused.
If the recommended rule was in place, the local police department would have the list of all authorized evictions that day and with Anita’s paperwork, local law enforcement would be able to discern whether or not an actual member of law enforcement was present during the act of changing the locks and if none were reported present, then the police report can reflect the act as an illegal lock-out. In addition, the police report can then be used at whatever future court date in whatever jurisdiction Anita brings this matter to.
RentersWelcome.com believes both of these examples put forth clear reasoning and rationale supporting the adoption of this mechanism not because police and municipal records show a rash of illegal lock-outs happening across the nation.
It is in all of the zero’s being put into a municipalities crime stats under the column “illegal lock-out”.
RentersWelcome.com believes that those who perform these acts deserve to have such acts recorded in public records so that future tenants can determine for themselves whether or not it is safe to rent from a property owner, and that this evidence should be as easy to access as a quick FOIA request to a local municipality.
Thank you for your time and consideration into this Reform Recommendation.
RentersWelcome.com
* (explanation of graphic) The start of the eviction process begins between only the tenant and landlord, with each having right to have an attorney after the process is started. The next stage of the process involved law enforcement on behalf of the landlord to deliver notice of court. After all court processes are exhausted, law enforcement can become involved, but only if an eviction has been upheld. This process denies victims of illegal lockouts an opportunity to quickly challenge a lock-out, even if law enforcement performs it due to potential delays in data entry triggering a lock-out when the courts ordered anything but.