Why does their "quiet enjoyment of the premise" take priority over her own "quiet enjoyment of the premise" to be able to trust her roommates not to violate her privacy and rummage through her personal belongings?

Turn it right back on them.

If I were her, I'd take a stand. Tell roomies to fuck off and tell the property manager to sue me if they have a problem with me staying.

She broke zero laws and presumably no provisions of her contract.

Unfortunately most of theses leases state the tenants are jointly and severally responsible for rent so the RE company can sue whoever they want to recover lost rents.

Either way I'd stand my ground and hope I could get GFM account to pay for missing tenants if need be.

quote:

‘We saw that you had a MAGA hat and, come on, you're from Alabama…

That's rather inclusive of them.

quote:

Either way I'd stand my ground and hope I could get GFM account to pay for missing tenants if need be.

I thought of that as well, perfect application for GFM. The 2A community would support her, I'd send $10-$20 for the extra rent until she gets new roommates.

quote:

quote:

“Nobody has bothered to question, ‘Why they illegally searched her room?"

This would be my question?

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
hopefully this will lead to yet another well-deserved black eye for Harvard - never a place for higher education - more like socialist indoctrination

its downtown Boston - certainly not the center of democracy

It doesn't really sound like it has anything to do with Harvard, the issue is with the property management company that runs her apartment building.

She might actually have a case under Harvard's Honor Code and Student Code of Conduct. It isn't enforceable by law, but it does affect them as long as they remain students at Harvard. It doesn't matter that it took place off campus property.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

I do not know if she would prevail, but she should sue for damages that are reasonable and permissible.

Couldn't agree more! Seems like a ripe opportunity for some badly needed push-back.

I would also go so far as calling the police and making a report for them illegally searching her room and accuse them of wanting to steal something of hers.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:

quote:

“We discussed with Leyla that all of us are uncomfortable with having firearms in the house, and that their presence causes anxiety and deprives us of the quiet enjoyment of the premise to which we are entitled,” one roommate wrote in an email obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

LOL - how many lawyers and hours did it take to craft this?

None. Because a competent lawyer would realize that as an equal tenant, Ms. Pirnie also is also entitled to quite enjoyment of the premise (which means, among other things, not having Ms. Pirnie's privacy violated by trespassers).

Also:

quote:

One of the girls responded that fear took over her body and she felt compelled to search my room until she found proof.

That's one hell of a private necessity defense!

Regarding truly illegal actions- are there really? If all are equal on the lease, does the lease spell this out specifically afa places within the apartment that tenants can and cannot access? I wonder what the law addresses in this area, if anything.

Immoral and wrong on many levels, but illegal? I'm not so sure.

quote:

Originally posted by AH.74:
Regarding truly illegal actions- are there really? If all are equal on the lease, does the lease spell this out specifically afa places within the apartment that tenants can and cannot access? I wonder what the law addresses in this area, if anything.

Immoral and wrong on many levels, but illegal? I'm not so sure.

Exactly where the line is drawn would depend on how the rooming situation was (very fact specific). Does Ms. Pirnie have an expectation of privacy? Can she reasonably exclude the other roommates from those areas that were searched without her permission?

The facts matter: hiding your shotgun under the communal couch isn't the same as hiding your handgun in your underwear drawer, under your underwear.

If she has her own room and can close the door and also did not give some kind of blanket permission to go in the room ("yo, help yourself whenever you want dawg!") then it's likely that she does have an expectation of privacy.

It might not be illegal in the sense that it's a prosecutable crime (in OR, they might be eligible for burglary II), but she may have a civil case against her roommates.

Agreed, LDD.

I also wonder how it would affect things if she had a lock on her door and they got in somehow.

I always put locks on my bedroom doors when I was in apartment-sharing situations- in Boston, I might add.

Just kept my room-mates honest, and left me with better peace of mind.

quote:

Originally posted by AH.74:
Agreed, LDD.

I also wonder how it would affect things if she had a lock on her door and they got in somehow.

I always put locks on my bedroom doors when I was in apartment-sharing situations- in Boston, I might add.

Just kept my room-mates honest, and left me with better peace of mind.

If they bypassed or broke through the lock, in Oregon, that would make them eligible for Burglary II (misdemeanor), or if they used a "burglary tool" to get in, Burglary I (felony). If they just entered without permission, that would be a trespass II in Oregon (misdemeanor).

If I was her, I wouldn't want to continue living in that location, but I would go after the roomies for relocation costs and anything I'd have to pay as a result of the broken lease with the landlord.

If what she is saying is true, she might have an intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress case too (she would not in Oregon because OR generally requires accompanying physical injury, but MA law may differ).

quote:

we are entitled

There it is.

Some things.

1) Not responding to this ridiculousness with all of the resources available to her only empowers and condones such behavior. She must respond in kind.

2) "I'm sorry my law abiding, constitutional, and legal rights cause you to be uncomfortable, but that is your problem, not mine."

3) Go to the Police and write up the incident NOW.

4) Lock your stuff up, dear. In fact you should have a small apartment grade safe of some kind.

5) Everything every one else has said up until now.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by Some Shot:

quote:

we are entitled

There it is.

They are entitled to quiet enjoyment, but then, so is Ms. Pirnie as a lawful tenant; the roomies' potentially criminal violation of Ms. Pirnie's privacy violates Ms. Pirnie's right to quiet enjoyment.

I've already given this far too much thought, but what the hell.

Another question which comes to mind is- how long have they all been living together up to this point? In that time, has Ms. Pirnie given the others any reason to not "quietly enjoy the premise?"

Then they go ahead and with no just cause, search and find the guns and end up giving themselves reason to get their own panties in a wad. Ms. Pirnie has done nothing to contribute to that.

If she refuses to leave they will call men with guns to remove her. Which of them is really the biggest threat?

I have used the "quiet enjoyment" provision a number of times to break a lease when asshole neighbors ruined my rental experience. Courts widely view it as valid. And in order for the eviction to stand (here in America, anyway), there should be a clause in the lease prohibiting guns or specifying how they must be stored.

Well...
I am uncomfortable with NOT having firearms in the house and their presence causes a feeling of enhanced security, allowing for the quiet enjoyment of the premise to which I am ENTITLED.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I do not know if she would prevail, but she should sue for damages that are reasonable and permissible.

And when is it required, under the tenants of the 2nd amendment, that one need give reason of the decision to protect and defend oneself, or to keep and bear arms?

Any person with an IQ above mud should be able to understand if only 2 people were on this planet, it would constitute a "threat" to both.

The second amendment protects her from the government, not her roommates.