Harker Heights’ Right of Entry Ordinance Threatens Personal Privacy and Property Rights

When I delved into Harker Heights' ordinance §93.06, “Right of Entry; Search Warrants,” I was struck by its far-reaching implications for individual privacy and property rights. This ordinance grants the Building Official broad authority to inspect private properties, potentially without adequate oversight or accountability. For those of us who value our Fourth Amendment rights, §93.06 raises serious concerns about government overreach, privacy, and the sanctity of personal property. In this article, I’ll explore the risks posed by this ordinance and why it may represent an unconstitutional intrusion on residents’ rights.

A Direct Challenge to Constitutional Protections

The ordinance begins by stating that the Building Official “may enter any building, structure, or premises at all reasonable times to make an inspection or enforce any of the provisions of this chapter.” This sweeping statement allows government officials near-unrestricted access to private property without first obtaining a warrant or probable cause, opening the door to potential abuse.

While §93.06 (B) outlines a process for requesting entry from occupants, it still allows officials to seek a warrant if entry is refused. However, the conditions under which they can obtain a warrant are alarmingly broad and vaguely defined. In essence, this ordinance subverts the standard requirements of probable cause that protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

Overly Broad Criteria for Issuing Warrants

One particularly troubling section of the ordinance is §93.06 (G), which allows the Building Official to present evidence for a search warrant based on factors such as:

• The age and condition of the property
• Prior violations or hazards found on the property
• The property’s intended use
• Conditions on nearby properties

These criteria lack specificity and accountability. For example, using “the age and condition of the premises” as a basis for probable cause essentially criminalizes older buildings, potentially subjecting owners to inspections without evidence of a specific violation. This could lead to discriminatory enforcement, targeting certain neighborhoods or property owners based on factors unrelated to actual safety concerns.

Threat to Property Owners' Rights

While §93.06 (F) requires an affidavit of probable cause for a search warrant, this affidavit may rely on subjective evidence, such as the general condition of nearby properties. In cases where the Building Official deems an area “unsafe” based on age or previous violations, residents may face repeated inspections and interference, even if they’ve committed no recent infractions. This approach presumes guilt, infringing on the presumption of innocence fundamental to American legal principles.

Further, §93.06 (C) prohibits any owner from refusing entry once proper credentials are displayed, effectively denying them the right to question or delay an inspection. This mandate leaves little room for property owners to protect their private space, undermining the right to privacy on their own property.

Granting Disproportionate Power to the Building Official

Perhaps one of the most concerning aspects of §93.06 is its potential violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. This ordinance essentially allows inspections without a specific, imminent threat, bypassing the probable cause standard. By accepting warrants based on factors like building age, the ordinance disregards the need for real evidence of a violation.

Additionally, the ordinance's assignment of power to a single official—the Building Official—who is granted exclusive authority to request search warrants under Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 18.05. Concentrating such power in one individual increases the risk of bias, inconsistency, and lack of accountability in the enforcement process. Without clear checks and balances, this position could be used to intimidate or target specific individuals or neighborhoods, all in the name of "public safety."

The Fine Line Between Public Safety and Government Overreach

Although public safety is undeniably essential, §93.06 blurs the boundary between necessary regulation and government overreach. By allowing warrants based on general conditions and speculative evidence, the ordinance assumes that government officials, rather than the property owner, are the primary guardians of residential safety. This philosophy risks undermining the freedom to use and enjoy one’s property without constant scrutiny or interference.

An Urgent Call for Change

Ordinance §93.06 exemplifies how well-intentioned regulations can inadvertently undermine residents’ rights. It overextends the city’s reach into private lives and property under the guise of public safety. If unchecked, this type of ordinance risks setting a precedent that erodes individual freedoms. Harker Heights’ residents should not have to choose between a safe community and their right to privacy.

Moving Forward: An Appeal for Transparency and Restraint

I urge the City of Harker Heights to reassess §93.06 with transparency and restraint in mind. A more balanced ordinance would ensure public safety without infringing on individual rights. This could involve clarifying and reinforcing property owners’ rights to refuse entry without fear of immediate penalty.

Residents deserve a city that respects their rights and privacy, not one that prioritizes control over individual freedom. By advocating for amendments to §93.06, we can help ensure that Harker Heights remains a safe and respectful community where the right to privacy is upheld, even in the name of safety.