The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (Housing
Authority) appealed from the September
28, 2012, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which
reversed the decision of a hearing officer terminating Sharon Degelman’s
housing assistance benefits received pursuant to Section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (Act), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1437f, because the
hearing officer capriciously disregarded substantial evidence. The
Commonwealth Court affirmed, but on different grounds – because possession of
drug paraphernalia is not "drug-related criminal activity."
On April 6, 2008, a police officer searched
Degelman’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant. The search yielded six empty
heroin stamp bags, a rubber tie band, nine cotton balls, two crack pipes, and
used hypodermic needles. Degelman pled guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct.
On
May 1, 2008, the Housing Authority issued a notice to Degelman terminating her
housing assistance benefits pursuant to 24 C.F.R. §982.553(b)(1)(ii) because
she had engaged in drug-related criminal activity in violation of 24 C.F.R.
§982.551(l). Degelman requested an informal grievance hearing.
In Romagna v. Housing
Authority of Indiana County (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1648 C.D. 2011, July 13,
2012), not reported in A.3d, 2012 WL 3026386, the court summarized the applicable federal
regulations and determined that possession of drug paraphernalia is not
“drug-related criminal activity.” In Romagna, the court stated that
[t]he Housing Authority’s definition of drug-related criminal activity does not
specify that drug paraphernalia is “drug-related.” Nor does it use language
broad enough to sweep possession of paraphernalia into the phrase “drug-related
criminal activity.” In Romagna v. Housing Authority of Indiana County),
the court summarized
the applicable federal regulations and determined that possession of drug
paraphernalia is not “drug-relate
Here,
a dispute exists about the extent of drug paraphernalia found at the property and whether the drug paraphernalia
belonged to Degelman or was left behind by intruders. However, under the
applicable federal regulations, a “drug-related criminal activity” requires the
actual use or possession of a drug, not drug paraphernalia. Thus, a
disorderly conduct conviction related to drug paraphernalia being found at the
Property provides insufficient cause to terminate Degelman’s housing assistance
benefits under 24 C.F.R. §982.553(b)(1)(iii). Given our determination, we need
not address the Housing Authority’s contention that the trial court erroneously
applied the capricious disregard standard.
