Suit Claims Tax Assesments Violate the Constitution

Phillip Smith of Hollis says his problem with property tax assessments began back in March, 2002.

That was when appraisers asked to enter his house to determine how much it was worth.

Smith says he and his wife didn't allow the men to enter their house.
we refused to allow the interior inspection because we did not want strangers traipsing through our home, invading our privacy, and we knew it was our constitutional right, ....to refuse this type of intrusion.

Once Smith refused entrance, state law prohibited him from successfully appealing his property tax bill.

Smith says he discovered this when he applied for a reduction in his property taxes.
when i my family and i did submit a request for abatement to our town of hollis and we challenged the value based on our land that request was denied, on the basis that we had refused an interior inspection of our house.

Under state law, towns can get a warrant to inspect the inside of a house.

But when towns get a warrant, they can still deny abatements.

The suit in federal court claims the state cannot penalize individuals for refusing an assessor entry.

Bert Gall is an attorney with the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C.

The institute is helping the families in federal court.

Gall says the state law goes beyond what's needed to conduct an assessment.
its unnecessary because government officials don't need to get inside your home to conduct property tax assessments. across the country, several states regularly conduct property tax reassessments without forcing their way into people's homes and without trampling on their constitutional rights.

State officials say the law is meant to keep property tax assessments up to date.

Anne Edwards is Associate Attorney General of New Hampshire.

She says there's no other way for towns to keep records current.
if assessors aren't able to get inside homes and be able to see that there's something like a marble fireplace that's going to increase the value of the house then they aren't able to assess it correctly.

But Professor Buzz Scherr of Franklin Pierce Law Center says the plaintiffs may have a good case.
so the government's not going to be able to respond no problem, its not as if we're forcing you to let us in the house. you don't have to let us in. the government's not going to be able to say that because the statute is written in a way that strongly that punishes a person, effectively, for not letting the government in the house, in order to assess.

The case could cause lawmakers to reexamine the law, and make changes to it in the next legislative session.