...the court seemed to view the case as a straightforward landlord-tenant matter in which tenants had signed a lease promising that no one in their apartments would use drugs -- period.

Now, I can see this >IF< they drugs were in the domicile.

If the crime is committed OUTSIDE of the domicile, I don't see HOW they could make THAT stick.

If I was renting, it wouldn't matter >WHAT< I did, as long as I wasn't on the property.

And I think this case illustrates all that is wrong with that ruling.

In fact, Oakland officials eventually permitted Pearlie Rucker to remain in her apartment once her daughter had been removed and, with her, the potential for drug use in the Rucker household.

Now, this is the correct solution to the problem. The law should state that the person with the drug problems (and only if such problems occur within the bounds of the project (say 500 yards in any direction?) ) will be evicted and issued a restraining order not to come within 500 yards of the domicile.

That way, the punks are kicked out of the project and gramma isn't living on the street.

...Oakland officials eventually permitted Pearlie Rucker to remain in her apartment...

I'd rather that decision not be left up to "officials" who might need to be reminded of what "compassion" is by the media.

It's a stupid law, it needs to be rewritten.

It's a stupid ruling, some judges need to be slapped.

Leaving aside whether the "war on drugs" is sane or productive or whatever ...

It's a pity the whole thing wound up in the Supreme Court; it sounds like we had a hardass manager who made the whole thing worse than it needed to be.

Yup. And the way this law is written, such can be the case again. I'd say we'll be seeing more stories like this in the future.