Sex Offender Eviction
WASHINGTON  (10-15-01)

Man evicted from apartment complex because of prior sex offender conviction

Archdiocesan Housing Authority v. Demmings, Court of Appeals of Washington, No. 46157-5 -I

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT:  Can a tenant be evicted retroactively from a rental property under a house rule because of a prior sex offender conviction?

FACTS:  Demmings was a convicted sex offender. He was a resident of Josephinium Apartments, owned and operated by the Archdiocesan Housing Authority. On his rental application, Demmings truthfully answered he was a convicted felon, but he was not asked the nature of this offense. He had resided at the complex since 1996 without incident and was compliant with his treatment plan.

In 1999, Josephinium learned three of its residents were convicted sex offenders. After considering the risks involved in light of its mission to provide safe housing to its tenants, which included children and vulnerable adults, the Housing Authority decided it would no longer knowingly rent to convicted sex offenders.

The Housing Authority advised the three tenants of the new rule; two left, but Demmings did not. The Housing Authority then sent a notice advising tenants that convicted sex of­fenders would no longer be allowed to live on the premises effective Oct. 31, 1999. Demmings had nor vacated by the date.

The Housing Authority brought an eviction suit against Demmings. Demmings did not argue the rule was un-reasonable, rather he contended it was unreasonable as applied to him. Demmings claimed it was unreasonable to apply the rule retroactively to evict him because the Housing Authority knew he was a convicted felon when it accepted him and he had not committed a sex offense during his tenancy. Also, according to Demming's counselor, he had "never exhibited any be­havior which suggested that he was at-risk of re-offending or engaging in any other behavior that made him a threat to others."

The court evicted Demmings, and he appealed.

DECISION: Affirmed.The rule was reasonable, and Demmings was appropriately evicted.Although Demmings' rehabilitation efforts were applauded and sympathy was extended to his plight, it was Demmings' status as a convicted sex offender and not his conduct that was at issue. The question was whether the rule itself was reasonable and not whether the rule was reasonable as ap­plied only to Demmings.

Recidivism in sex offenders was an increased risk to the public, and pro­tection from sex offenders was a "par­amount governmental interest." Given the relative importance, it was not unreasonable for a low-income landlord to enact a rule excluding convicted sexual offenders. As long as the rule was reasonable, and 30 days notice was given, the eviction was proper.