Haji Azam v. City of Columbia Heights, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13799

From Sept. 2013 to Jan. 2014 Columbia Heights police, at the direction of City supervisors, conducted weekly walkthroughs of several multiunit apartment buildings owned by Haji Azam to look for municipal-code violations; officers used emergency fire keys when necessary and obtained no warrants or asserted consents.
Police cited Azam multiple times (ten citations for thirteen violations) for security, smoke-detector, laundry-room, and other code violations; the City also charged nuisance-call fees and later revoked several rental licenses, rendering him ineligible for a license for five years.
The City justified stepped-up enforcement by a long history (since 2009) of disproportionate crime and nuisance calls at Azam’s properties and prior mitigation plans that produced only temporary improvement.
Azam sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process violations (arbitrary, oppressive conduct intended to force him out of business) and Fourth Amendment unlawful searches (entry into common areas without warrants or consent).
The district court granted summary judgment to the City on all claims; Azam appealed only the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rulings.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: (1) no substantive-due-process violation because the City’s conduct did not meet the high ‘‘shocks the conscience’’ standard; and (2) no Fourth Amendment violation because Azam lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in building common areas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City's increased enforcement and license revocations violated substantive due process (Fourteenth Amendment)	Azam: City targeted his properties arbitrarily and oppressively, held him liable for tenants/nonresidents, acted with deliberate indifference to force him out of business	City: Enforcement addressed longstanding public-safety problems and nuisance calls; actions pursued legitimate health/safety objectives, not conscience-shocking conduct	Affirmed for City — plaintiff failed to show arbitrary, oppressive conduct that "shocks the conscience"; no §1983 liability on these facts
Whether warrantless entries into common areas violated the Fourth Amendment	Azam: Police entered locked common areas without warrant/consent to search for code violations, constituting unlawful searches	City: Common areas are open to residents, guests, and others; owner/landlord lacks reasonable expectation of privacy in such areas	Affirmed for City — no reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas; Fourth Amendment claim fails (property‑right trespass theory waived)

Entergy, Ark., Inc. v. Nebraska, 241 F.3d 979 (8th Cir.) (describing substantive-due-process "shocks the conscience" standard)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S.) (establishing conscience‑shocking test for substantive due process)
Rozman v. City of Columbia Heights, 268 F.3d 588 (8th Cir.) (municipal revocation of licenses did not constitute substantive-due-process violation)
Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir.) (upholding aggressive housing-code enforcement as not ‘‘truly egregious’’ under substantive due process)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S.) (policy for municipal §1983 liability for failure to train requires deliberate indifference)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S.) (establishing the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S.) (recognizing property‑based trespass test for Fourth Amendment searches)
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (U.S.) (applying expectation-of-privacy analysis)
United States v. Eisler, 567 F.2d 814 (8th Cir.) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in apartment common areas)
United States v. McGrane, 746 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in building storage areas accessible to others)