ChApter 9|DISCRIMINATION
|
145
and you may not refuse to rent to someone on that
basis—even if the addiction resulted in a conviction.
(People with convictions for the sale or manufacture
of drugs, or current drug users, are not, however,
protected under the Fair Housing Act.)
Megan’s Law
Not surprisingly, most landlords do not want to rent
to tenants with convictions for violent sexual offenses
or any sexual offenses against children. Checking
a prospective tenant’s background by ordering an
investigative background report, as explained in
Chapter 1, is one way to find out about a person’s
criminal history. Self-reporting is another: Rental
applications, such as the one in this book, typically ask
applicants whether they have ever been convicted of a
crime and, if so, to provide the details.
“Megan’s Law” may be able to further assist you in
determining whether an applicant has a prior conviction
for any sexual offense against a minor or a violent
sexual offense against an adult. This law requires
certain convicted sexual offenders to register with local
law enforcement officials, who give the information
on their whereabouts to a database maintained by the
state. (Calif. Penal Code § 290.4.) Local law enforcement
officials have the discretion to notify people who live
near offenders who are “high risk” or “serious.”
The Department of Justice posts the database
on a website, www.meganslaw.ca.gov. (Penal Code
§ 290.46.) However, it is a crime to consult the website
database for any reason other than to “protect a
person at risk,” and to subsequently deny housing
to an applicant because of his placement on the list.
Violating this law could result in triple actual damages,
punitive damages, or a civil penalty of up to $25,000,
as well as attorneys’ fees.
Despite these strictures, many landlords routinely
check the Megan’s Law database. If you do, be aware
that it has promised far more than it actually delivers.
The law depends in large part on voluntary registration,
and the not-surprising result is that California has lost
track of nearly half of its sex offenders, according to
data released by the state. (“Officials Admit Megan’s Law
Database Is Missing Thousands,” San Francisco Daily
Journal, January 8, 2003, p. 3.) Hopefully, the other
methods we recommend that you use to learn about
prospective tenants will, taken together, give you a
complete and accurate picture.
Arrests
A more difficult problem is posed by the person who
has an arrest record but no conviction. For starters,
California law strictly forbids a consumer credit
reporting agency (the agency doing the background
check) from reporting an arrest unless there was a
resulting conviction. (CC § 1785.13(a)(6).) Moreover,
even convictions that are more than seven years old
cannot be reported at all. These restrictions apply
to all credit reporting agencies preparing reports for
use in California, even if the agency itself is based in
another state.
State law does not, however, limit the right of an
individual, as opposed to a credit reporting agency,
from asking the question or going to the courthouse
(or court websites) and checking public records. If you
do this and discover that an applicant has an arrest
record, what should you do with this information?
Remember, many arrests result in the charges
being dropped or reduced, and some defendants
are acquitted at trial. A person who was mistakenly
arrested or acquitted by a jury is not necessarily going
to be a bad tenant. Think carefully before you base
a rejection on an arrest record alone, especially if the
arrest is old or involves a crime unrelated to good-
tenant criteria. Be particularly careful if the applicant
is also a member of a racial, ethnic, or other group
that is protected by the fair housing laws. And keep
in mind that if the rest of your background check
(involving former landlords and employers) has been
thorough, chances are that you will come up with solid
information that you can use to reject an applicant
without fear of a fair housing claim.
exAmple: When the bank on Main Street was
robbed, the police broadcast a description of the
robber as a young white male with brown hair,
wearing jeans, and driving a tan Camaro. Andrew
was stopped because he and his car fit this
description, and he was arrested and eventually
stood trial. He was acquitted by the jury when his
attorney was able to show that the fingerprints
left by the robber did not match Andrew’s.
When Andrew applied for an apartment a few
years later, the landlord went to the local county
courthouse and asked to examine the criminal
records of the last several years. He read about
Andrew’s arrest, trial, and acquittal. Because