united-states privacy landlord tenant pennsylvania
Landlord required to divulge tenant identity
<p>A new law requires landlords to provide the following
information about their tenants:</p>

<ul>
<li>Name </li>
<li>Who is "head of household"</li>
<li>Phone number</li>
<li>Age (approximate)</li>
</ul>

<p>Then the tenant is required to go to the town office
and provide a state-issued id to confirm their
identity.</p>

<p>I would like to know if this violates tenant privacy
(or some existing law).</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If the lease has no tenant privacy statement, does
that mean that no information can be disclosed by the
landlord?  Or does it mean that any information can be
disclosed?</p></li>
<li><p>If the lease has a privacy statement, does that
prevent the disclosure of this information?  Or does
the new law over-ride what is written in the lease?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>On several websites is says that landlords must not
give out "private" information, but it is not clear to me
if that means revealing the identity of a tenant.</p>

<p>The stated purpose of the new law is so that police and
fire department will know who resides if they are called
to a dwelling</p>

<p>In case it matters, this is in Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>I suspect that the statute in question may be <a href="https://ecode360.com/11770012" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 11-104(1)(F)</a> of municipal ordinances of the Town of Bloomsburg, PA, a university town (home to <a href="https://www.bloomu.edu/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bloomberg University of Pennsylvania</a>, a public college) that purports to have special need for regulation based upon the large number of student rentals in the town and apparently applies primarily to house rentals to students. (If not, the ordinance in question may be modeled on this one, or this one may be modeled on the ordinance in question.) This ordinance imposes the following duties on people who have been granted landlord licenses, which the town requires of most landlords renting to students (a landlord is called the "owner" in the ordinance):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The owner shall maintain a current and accurate list of the occupants
  in each regulated rental unit or dormitory unit which shall include
  their name, permanent address and permanent telephone number which
  shall be available to the Town for inspection upon reasonable notice.
  The owner shall notify the Town of changes in the occupancy within 10
  days of the change and shall provide the name of the person who is not
  longer residing in the premises in the event a person departs and the
  name, permanent address and permanent telephone number of new
  occupants in the event a new person is added.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>On its face, this is probably valid. There is not a constitutional right to keep your own contact information or address, or your tenant's identity. Indeed, very similar requirements are routinely imposed upon operators of hotels and motels. And, I strongly suspect that in Pennsylvania, that towns of any reasonable population have more or less plenary authority to adopt ordinances that aren't specifically prohibited by other state or federal laws or constitutions or the town charter.</p>

<p>I do not believe that there are any federal statutes that prohibit a town from imposing such a requirement, barring extraordinary circumstances like a duty to cooperate with national security measures, witness protection programs, or a federal organized crime investigation that don't benefit the average tenant.</p>

<p>The kind of privacy policy and privacy disclosure laws in place at the national level apply mostly to health and financial information (and far more in Europe), but not generally to legally mandated disclosures of landlords to local governments. The requirements of a privacy policy don't apply here. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">main federal privacy laws</a> and some of the most notable state privacy laws are:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li><p>The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) which affects websites that knowingly collect information about or targeted at
  children under the age of 13. Any such websites must post a privacy
  policy and adhere to enumerated information-sharing restrictions COPPA
  includes a "safe harbor" provision to promote Industry
  self-regulation.</p></li>
  <li><p>The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires institutions "significantly engaged" in financial activities give "clear, conspicuous, and
  accurate statements" of their information-sharing practices. The Act
  also restricts use and sharing of financial information.</p></li>
  <li><p>The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules requires notice in writing of the privacy practices of
  health care services, and this requirement also applies if the health
  service is electronic.</p></li>
  <li><p>The California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 – Business and Professions Code sections 22575-22579 requires "any commercial
  websites or online services that collect personal information on
  California residents through a web site to conspicuously post a
  privacy policy on the site".</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Both Nebraska and Pennsylvania have laws treating misleading
  statements in privacy policies published on websites as deceptive or
  fraudulent business practices.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But, most of these laws apply only to Internet sharing of information by private firms, and the Nebraska and Pennsylvania laws don't require anyone to actually have a privacy policy. Those laws certainly don't pre-empt local ordinances.</p>

<p>There is at least one state law that should supply an exemption to this statute in Pennsylvania pertaining to confidentiality for domestic violence victims that should override contrary town ordinances.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://www.ova.pa.gov/Programs/AddressConfidentialityProgram/Pages/ACP-Statute.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Address Confidentiality Program (ACP)</a>: Victims can get a legal
  substitute address (usually a post office box) to use in place of
  their physical address; this address can be used whenever an address
  is required by public agencies. First class mail sent to the
  substitute address is forwarded to the victim's actual address.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Probably the most fruitful means by which an ordinance like this one could be challenged would be to argue that the true intent of the ordinances when adopted or as it has been subsequently applied, is to use it for a purpose that the town is not allowed to engage in, such as enforcing immigration laws, suppressing voting rights, imposing a de facto poll tax, or engaging in discrimination against a protected class in violation of state and federal fair housing laws. </p>

<p>College students, however, the expressly stated and plausible target of the ordinance, are not generally a protected class under fair housing legislation. </p>

<p>There are precedents upholding zoning regulations discriminating against households of "Dwelling units presently being used by three or more unrelated individuals" aimed at students and other kind of populations whom municipal busybodies often find to be undesirable against federal constitutional challenges. <em>See, e.g., Moore v. East Cleveland</em>, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) and <em>Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas</em>, 416 U.S. 1 (1974). California's courts have been more hostile to this kind of legislation. <em>See, e.g. City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson</em>, 27 Cal. 3d 125 (Cal. 1980) (an op-ed arguing that this was wrongly decided in the L.A. Times in 1990 is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-24-me-653-story.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>), but that isn't very helpful in Pennsylvania, and California rather than Pennsylvania is the outlier nationally on this kind of issue. The general issue over free association and privacy rights in connection with housing and unrelated individuals is discussed in an up to date manner in a <a href="https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1293&amp;context=flr" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2016 Florida Law Review article</a>.</p>

<p>Proving an improper purpose in an as applied or legislative intent based challenge to a facially neutral statute is very, very difficult in all but the most blatant cases (e.g. when town council members openly proclaim their improper purpose is that true purpose of the law).</p>

<p>No doubt recognizing the possibility of such a challenge to the ordinance, this particular ordinance has a particularly lengthy and detailed legislative declaration regarding its purpose that no doubt is an effort to take a position that it has a proper purpose in the event of future litigation. This states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It is the purpose of this Part and the policy of the Town Council of
  the Town of Bloomsburg, in order to protect and promote the public
  health, safety and welfare of its citizens, to establish rights and
  obligations of owners and occupants relating to the rental of certain
  dwelling units and dormitory units in the Town of Bloomsburg and to
  encourage owners and occupants to maintain and improve the quality of
  rental housing within the community. It is also the policy of the Town
  that owners, managers and occupants share responsibilities to obey the
  various codes adopted to protect and promote public health, safety and
  welfare. As means to those ends, this Part provides for a system of
  inspections, issuance and renewal of occupancy licenses and sets
  penalties for violations. This Part shall be liberally construed and
  applied to promote its purposes and policies. In considering the
  adoption of this Part, the Town of Bloomsburg makes the following
  findings:</p>
  
  <p>A.  While the Town Council of the Town of Bloomsburg acknowledges the
  significant contribution that Bloomsburg University, its students,
  faculty and staff makes to the culture and economy of the Town of
  Bloomsburg, in recent years, adverse effects of student housing on
  residential neighborhoods have increased and there has been an
  increase in destructive student behavior that threatens the health,
  safety and welfare of the student citizens and non-student citizens of
  the Town of Bloomsburg.</p>
  
  <p>B.  Accordingly, the Town Council of the Town of Bloomsburg makes the
  following findings relating to student housing and its effect on the
  residential neighborhoods of the Town of Bloomsburg and the effect of
  student lifestyles on the health, safety and welfare of the student
  citizens and non-student citizens of the Town of Bloomsburg:</p>
  
  <p>(1) When compared to other unrelated cohabitating individuals and
  traditional families, groups of students have different hours, work
  and social habits and frequently cause noise, disturbances and
  problems in residential neighborhoods.</p>
  
  <p>(2) There is a greater incidence of violations of various codes of the
  Town at residential properties where owners rent such property to
  students.</p>
  
  <p>(3) There is a greater incidence of problems with the maintenance and
  upkeep of residential properties where owners rent such property to
  students than at owner-occupied residential properties,
  family-occupied residential rental properties or residential
  properties that are occupied by unrelated persons who are not
  students.</p>
  
  <p>(4) There is a greater incidence of disturbances which adversely
  affect the peace and quiet of the neighborhood at residential
  properties where owners rent to students than at owner-occupied
  residential properties, family-occupied residential rental properties
  or residential properties that are occupied by unrelated persons who
  are not students.</p>
  
  <p>(5) A concentration of student homes changes the character of a
  neighborhood from one with traditional family values to one that
  cannot maintain those and approximately 90% of the Town's student
  homes are concentrated in two areas of the Town which displaces middle
  and lower income housing by absorbing housing units and rendering the
  remaining units less desirable for more traditional residential use.</p>
  
  <p>(6) Since 1994, nine students have died as a result of fires in houses
  occupied by students; two students have died of alcohol overdose; one
  student has died as a result of exposure when he fell from a porch at
  a student party.</p>
  
  <p>(7) Since 1997, 155 reports of disruptive conduct under the Town's
  Regulated Rental Unit Occupancy Ordinance involving student behavior
  have been filed.</p>
  
  <p>(8) Since 1996, 73 prosecutions for unlawfully occupying premises
  while smoke or fire detectors were not operational have been filed
  against students.</p>
  
  <p>(9) Since 1998, 295 prosecutions for underage drinking have been filed
  against students and 11 prosecutions were filed against non-student
  residents of the Town of Bloomsburg.</p>
  
  <p>(10) Since 1998, 43 student parties have been raided where arrests
  were made for underage drinking and furnishing alcohol to minors. </p>
  
  <p>(11) There are sufficient differences between student housing and
  nonstudent housing and the behavior of students and non-student
  residents to justify different regulations for each class of resident.</p>
  
  <p>(12) Dwelling units presently being used by three or more unrelated
  individuals are being modified for occupancy by two students requiring
  the relocating of bearing walls and the modification of utilities,
  sanitation facilities, means of ingress and egress and smoke and fire
  detection systems.</p>
  
  <p>(13) Inspections of dwelling units occupied by two students have
  revealed little or no life protecting equipment in the dwelling units
  such as smoke and fire alarms and detectors and fire extinguishers,
  over-loaded electrical services, heating systems needing servicing and
  the use of supplemental heaters, all of which create a dangerous
  living environment.</p>
  
  <p>(14) There is a significant occurrence of disruptive behavior in
  dwelling units occupied by less than three unrelated students as
  compared to dwelling units that are occupied by owners, traditional
  families or unrelated persons who are not students.</p>
  
  <p>(15) Students who remain in the occupancy of the premises for periods
  of time after they are no longer students contribute to the
  above-described problems.</p>
  
  <p>(16) Because of the demand for student housing in the Town of
  Bloomsburg, developers have expressed interest in developing
  properties for use as dormitories where students live in rooms without
  fixed kitchen facilities.</p>
  
  <p>(17) Dormitory type uses are not covered by the Regulated Rental Unit
  Occupancy Ordinance which applies only to dwelling units.</p>
  
  <p>(18) The Town Council of the Town of Bloomsburg is desirous of
  providing the same protection and standards for students who reside in
  dormitories or dwelling units.</p>
  
  <p>(19) The Town Council of the Town of Bloomsburg is desirous of
  imposing the same responsibilities upon owners of dormitory units and
  dwelling units where students reside.</p>
  
  <p>(20) The Town Council of the Town of Bloomsburg finds that Bloomsburg
  University has sufficient resources and interest to properly manage
  dormitories owned by it and there is no need to regulate such
  dormitories.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even though it probably isn't inherently invalid, it is unusual, so it is likely to be challenged if someone can find an angle to do so. And, I suspect that its purposes are not as pure as those formally identified in the text of the ordinance.</p>

<p>In conclusion, while I would totally hate to have an ordinance like that one in my town, it isn't obviously invalid and would probably survive a facial challenge in the absence of evidence that is was being applied in an illegally discriminatory manner.</p>
