Warren wins lawsuit filed by property owner over blight inspection

WARREN A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the owner of a commercial building, claiming Warren city officials trespassed when they inspected the property for possible blight and safety conditions.

U.S. District Judge Benita Y. Pearson granted summary judgment on Wednesday to the defendants in the case, effectively ending the lawsuit.

Robert Harvey III had claimed the city interfered with his right to use and maintain his property at 369 Tod Avenue. His lawsuit alleged that city officials engaged in trespassing, illegal searches and seizures, and malicious prosecution. He also accused the city of intentional negligence, a breach of fiduciary duty, and an “outright betrayal of the public trust” that caused property damage and harm.

The defendants in the case were the City of Warren, Mayor William Franklin, Building Official Christopher Taneyhill, and Director of Public Service and Safety Services Eddie Colbert.

According to court documents, the city's building department began its involvement with Harvey's property in October 2022. Building official Christopher Taneyhill claimed the exterior of the commercial building and its surrounding area appeared to be blighted and unsafe. He then sent two inspectors to the property to take photographs and look for possible code violations.

Harvey confronted the inspectors in the parking lot and told them to leave the property, and they complied. After this, the city obtained a search warrant from a Warren Municipal Court judge. The warrant was based on the exterior observations of the property's state of disrepair, as well as the fact that the building's water and electricity had been shut off.

The city executed the search warrant on October 27, 2022, and its inspection found 17 violations of the Ohio Building Code and four city ordinance violations. A violation order was issued on Dec. 21, 2022, and sent to Harvey by certified mail. The order also informed him of his right to appeal the findings.

The city's involvement continued into 2023. On July 19, a city official approached Harvey and an unregistered contractor on the property and told the contractor to stop work because they did not have a building permit. The next day, the city posted a "Stop Work Order" on the building's front door. During this time, Harvey claimed he had not received proper notice of the demolition for his property, prompting Taneyhill to hand him a folder of the investigation documents in person.

In October 2023, the city filed a criminal complaint against Harvey in municipal court, charging him with five misdemeanors related to code violations, including working without a permit and unauthorized entry on nuisance premises. To resolve, the city later agreed to remove the property from the demolition list and dismiss the criminal charges without prejudice. The charges were dropped on April 3, 2024.

Judge Pearson's decision to dismiss the case found no evidence to support Harvey's claims that his constitutional rights had been violated.

The court's written opinion stated that the city's initial observations from the street and parking lot did not constitute an illegal search because the public can see those areas. It also found that the interior inspection was valid because city officials had a warrant. The judge noted that the expectation of privacy in a commercial property is less than in a private home.

The court found that the city provided adequate notice to Harvey about the violations and his ability to appeal them. Judge Pearson cited the certified letter sent in December 2022 and the physical delivery of documents in July 2023 as examples of the city's attempts to inform the owner.

The judge also stated that there was no evidence that the city's actions were arbitrary or capricious, and that enforcing building and safety codes is a legitimate function of government. The opinion noted that Harvey had not taken any steps to correct the code violations at his property as of this past January.

Judge Pearson concluded that since no constitutional violations were found, the lawsuit against the city itself could not proceed. The court also found no evidence that Mayor Franklin or Director Colbert were personally involved in the events and dismissed the claims against them as well.