February 1, 2026

Landmark Victory For Renters’ Privacy And Property Rights

IJ scored a first-of-its-kind ruling on behalf of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, landlord Steve Camburn and his tenants when a state appeals court ruled that town officials need a real warrant to inspect homes without permission from the landlord or tenant.
IJ scored a first-of-its-kind ruling on behalf of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, landlord Steve Camburn and his tenants when a state appeals court ruled that town officials need a real warrant to inspect homes without permission from the landlord or tenant.

Some victories arrive as thunderclaps; others come like the slow lifting of a long, oppressive fog. Our rental-inspection challenge in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, was the latter—a case that began in 2017 and wound its way through years of procedural traps, vanished documents, sudden turns, and hard-won breakthroughs. Yet IJ and our clients endured. The storm did its worst, and now, at last, the sky has opened with a clear message: Come back with a warrant.

In December, a Pennsylvania appeals court issued a unanimous precedential ruling holding that the commonwealth’s constitution requires individualized probable cause before the government can enter a rented home. In doing so, the court declined to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s diminished approach to “administrative warrants,” instead restoring the full force of Pennsylvania’s own search-and-seizure protections. It is the first ruling of its kind in the nation.

The path to this moment was anything but straightforward. Simply bringing the case required exquisite timing: file too early and courts dismiss the claim as unripe, but file too late and they deem it moot. Once filed, the case encountered every obstacle imaginable—restricted discovery, the removal of a trial judge, municipal files that vanished and had to be resurrected through forensic analysis, and a hard-fought appellate battle just to obtain records showing how Pottstown actually wielded its inspection powers. 

Along the way, inspectors’ own notes confirmed what tenants had long feared: Intimate details of their private lives (gathered by searching bedrooms, bathrooms, and other areas) were shared casually, and the inspection program had become a ready-made backdoor for law enforcement.

And yet, when the appellate court finally confronted the constitutional question, the answer arrived with clarity and conviction. The Pennsylvania Constitution protects the sanctity of the home for everyone. Renters are not second-class citizens whose living spaces canbe entered on a government schedule. The federal standard may have drifted, but Pennsylvania’s has not.

This ruling now places every municipality in the commonwealth on notice. Rental inspections are not abolished—but forced entry without individualized probable cause is. Where towns once relied on administrative warrants as routine, they must now confront the constitutional limits they long overlooked. 

For the ordinary Pennsylvanians at the center of this lawsuit—people who simply want to live in peace, free from unwarranted intrusion—this decision marks a profound moment of empowerment.

And for IJ, it is something more: a reminder that state constitutions remain powerful sources of liberty, capable of strengthening rights federal doctrine has allowed to thin. Sometimes the storms of litigation rage with cruel fury. But when they pass—and they do pass—the returning light can reveal a landscape transformed.

This ruling is that kind of light.

Rob Peccola is IJ’s special counsel for litigation and development.

Share

Related Case

The home of Dottie and Omar Rivera, who challenged Pottstown, Pennsylvania's unconstitutional rental inspection program.

Pennsylvania Tenants and Landlord Challenge Unconstitutional Inspections of Homes

Pottstown, Pennsylvania has a rental inspection law that forces landlords and tenants to open their properties and homes to submit to intrusive inspections. On behalf of multiple tenants and a landlord, IJ is challenging this intrusive law that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Also in this Issue

Ameal Woods (right) and Jordan Davis (left) scored a major victory when a Texas appeals court ordered $41,680 in seized cash to be returned to them. The state has declined to appeal but continues to delay returning the funds

Liberty & Law

Victory! Texas Couple Wins Round Two In Forfeiture Fight

February 1, 2026

instructor and student in pool

Liberty & Law

Red Tape Sinks Backyard Swim Lesson

February 1, 2026

Chad standing in front of his house.

Liberty & Law

Sunshine State Shakedown: IJ Challenges Miami’s Extortionate Land-Use Permitting Scheme

February 1, 2026

Two men standing in industrial warehouse space with overhead lighting and workbenches visible in background

Liberty & Law

Lighthouse Will Continue To Shine For Washington Community

February 1, 2026

Pashko and Tony Lulgjuraj standing on the street outside their apartment building.

Liberty & Law

Freeing The New York City Housing Market

February 1, 2026

Green-topped table with gavel and Lady Justice statue in law library with white text 'Counsel Unbound' overlaid

Liberty & Law

Counsel Unbound: IJ’s New Initiative To Liberate Legal Help

February 1, 2026

construction worker in street with sledgehammer

Liberty & Law

Why IJ Is Suing ICE

February 1, 2026

IJ client Greg Mills worked as an engineer for decades, but an Arizona licensing law forbids him from being his own boss.

Liberty & Law

IJ Engineers A Trip To The Arizona Supreme Court To Expand Economic Liberty

February 1, 2026

Bad Data' text over an Indiana state outline on an orange gradient background

Liberty & Law

New IJ Study Finds Bad Data In Indiana Forfeiture Reports

February 1, 2026

Renee Flaherty speaks at outdoor microphones beside two attorneys during a South Carolina press conference

Liberty & Law

IJ Makes Headlines

February 1, 2026

Subscribe to get Liberty & Law magazine direct to your mailbox!

Sign up to receive IJ's bimonthly magazine, Liberty & Law, along with breaking news updates about the Institute for Justice's fight to protect the rights of all Americans.