Federal regulations prohibit U.S. taxpayer-supported legal services programs
from defending public housing residents from being evicted for violating drug
laws. Despite this prohibition, legal services programs nationwide
continue to find ways to use taxpayer dollars to defend criminal behavior in
public housing, as the following cases demonstrate.
Legal Services Claims Public Housing Visitor’s Drug Possession Not Grounds For Eviction
Memphis Area Legal Services (MALS) represented a woman living in Memphis public housing in an eviction proceeding brought by the Memphis Housing Authority because a guest in her home was arrested for cocaine possession. Although federal regulations do not permit Legal Services Corporation grantees to defend people charged or convicted of drug offenses in public housing eviction cases, MALS was able to do an “end-around” this regulation in this case because the drug activity was conducted by the tenant’s guest, not the tenant herself. In this case, legal services argued that the tenant, Tara Thompson, should not be evicted because she did not know about her guest’s drug activity and did not authorize the guest to bring drugs into her apartment. Both the trial court and the appeals court hearing the case ruled that legal services had no basis to make this argument since Thompson’s lease with the housing authority clearly stated that any illegal drugs present in the apartment would be grounds for eviction--in other words it did not matter under the terms of the lease whether the tenant knew about the presence of illegal drugs. Interestingly, Memphis Housing Authority is required under federal law to include such an anti-drug provision in its leases. As a result, legal services ended up in the dubious position of spending federal taxpayer dollars to find a way to thwart a lease provision required by federal law. Moreover, this case is an example of a legal services program using public money to facilitate illegal activity in public housing--a strange way to help better the lives of the poor.
See Memphis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 506
(Tenn. App. July 29, 1999).
Legal Services Defends Man Shooting Rifle In Public Housing
The Northwest Justice Project, which is the grantee for the State of Washington of taxpayer dollars from the Legal Services Corporation, successfully defended a pair of Tacoma public housing dwellers in an eviction proceeding against them brought after one of the pair was reported shooting his rifle on public housing property. The Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) brought the case against Hea Horn and John Allison after a neighboring tenant complained to THA about Allison shooting his rifle in the driveway in front of their unit. The witness delayed complaining about the shooting for several months because she feared retaliation. While the complaint was pending, THA continued accepting rent from Horn and Allison for three months. Legal services used this fact to convince state trial and appeals courts that THA’s eviction claim was invalid. Under Washington law, if a landlord continues to accept rent payments after learning of a breach of the lease, the landlord waives his right to evict the tenant based on that lease breach. Despite this, it is reprehensible that Northwest Justice Project chose to spend taxpayer dollars on a case that only serves to make public housing for the poor more dangerous.
See Housing Authority v. Horn, 1998 Wash. App. LEXIS 1293 (Wash. App. Sept. 4, 1998)