24 C.F.R. § 960.204

Denial of admission for criminal activity or drug abuse by household members

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Required denial of admission—(1) Persons evicted for drug-related criminal activity. The PHA standards must prohibit admission of an applicant to the PHA's public housing program for three years from the date of the eviction if any household member has been evicted from federally assisted housing for drug-related criminal activity. However, the PHA may admit the household if the PHA determines:

(i) The evicted household member who engaged in drug-related criminal activity has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program approved by the PHA; or

(ii) The circumstances leading to the eviction no longer exist (for example, the criminal household member has died or is imprisoned).

(2) Persons engaging in illegal use of a drug. The PHA must establish standards that prohibit admission of a household to the PHA's public housing program if:

(i) The PHA determines that any household member is currently engaging in illegal use of a drug (For purposes of this section, a household member is “currently engaged in” the criminal activity if the person has engaged in the behavior recently enough to justify a reasonable belief that the behavior is current); or

(ii) The PHA determines that it has reasonable cause to believe that a household member's illegal use or pattern of illegal use of a drug may threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.

(3) Persons convicted of methamphetamine production. The PHA must establish standards that permanently prohibit admission to the PHA's public housing program if any household member has ever been convicted of drug-related criminal activity for manufacture or production of methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing.

(4) Persons subject to sex offender registration requirement. The PHA must establish standards that prohibit admission to the PHA's public housing program if any member of the household is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program. In the screening of applicants, the PHA must perform necessary criminal history background checks in the State where the housing is located and in other States where household members are known to have resided. (See part 5, subpart J of this title for provisions concerning access to sex offender registration records.)

(b) Persons that abuse or show a pattern of abuse of alcohol. The PHA must establish standards that prohibit admission to the PHA's public housing program if the PHA determines that it has reasonable cause to believe that a household member's abuse or pattern of abuse of alcohol may threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.

(c) Use of criminal records. Before a PHA denies admission to the PHAs public housing program on the basis of a criminal record, the PHA must notify the household of the proposed action to be based on the information and must provide the subject of the record and the applicant with a copy of the criminal record and an opportunity to dispute the accuracy and relevance of that record. (See part 5, subpart J of this title for provisions concerning access to criminal records.)

(d) Cost of obtaining criminal record. The PHA may not pass along to the applicant the costs of a criminal records check.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Bridgeman v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 67 N.E.3d 673 (Mass. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bridgeman v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 67 N.E.3d 673 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 13661 (2012); 24 C.F.R. §§ 960.204 (a)(1), 982.553(a)(1), (2)(ii); G.”

Jane Doe v. Michael DeWine, 910 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 2018). “24 C.F.R. §§ 960.204 (a)(4), 982.553(a)(2)(i).”

Landers v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 936 N.E.2d 735 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “See 24 C.F.R. §§960.204 (c), 960.208(a)(2008); 42 U.”

Antonia Paris v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 843 F.2d 561 (1st Cir. 1988). · cites it 5× “) The current HUD regulations issued pursuant to this statute and pertinent to income mixing in public housing are codified at 24 C.F.R. § 960.204 -.205 (1987). Section 960.”

James v. New York City Hous. Auth., 622 F. Supp. 1356 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). · cites it 7× “24 C.F.R. § 960.204 . The court agrees with plaintiffs that the Authority’s mandatory duration-of-family composition requirements serve none of the three policy goals outlined in HUD regulation, 24 C.”

Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 1994). “24 C.F.R. 960.204. Therefore, to the extent that these lists are intermingled, and to the extent that tenant selection is racially discriminatory, facts which the BMHA plaintiffs allege, then those with authority over such projects are in violation of the constitution, federal…”

Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of Taylor, 866 F. Supp. 999 (W.D. Tex. 1994). · cites it 10× “However, we do find that the THA should establish its policy in writing in accordance with HUD regulation 24 C.F.R. § 960.204 (d). II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for summary judgment “if the pleading, depositions,…”

Rivera v. Reading Hous. Auth., 819 F. Supp. 1323 (E.D. Pa. 1993). · cites it 5× “Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) regulations prohibiting categorical limitations in tenant selection criteria ( 24 C.F.R. §§ 960.204 (c)(1), 960.205(a)); and (C) as violating the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it creates an irrebuttable…”

Faison v. New York City Hous. Auth., 283 A.D.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Federal regulations require public housing authorities to establish and adopt written admission policies designed, inter alia, “[t]o preclude admission of applicants whose habits and practices reasonably may be expected to have a detrimental effect on the residents or the…”

Gholston v. Hous. Auth., 818 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1987). · cites it 8× “Specifically, they allege that the MHA (1) categorically *778 denied admission to public housing applicants whose rent payments would be one to twenty dollars per month and to those who would be entitled to zero or negative rent, see 24 C.F.R. § 960.204 (c)(1) (1986); (2) failed…”

Bennington Hous. Auth. v. Bush, 933 A.2d 207 (Vt. 2007). “24 C.F.R. § 960.204 (a)(1)®. Second, the import of the regulations is to protect public housing from criminal elements, especially drug activity, that could adversely affect the community.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.