FOR PUBLICATION


ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:

J. DAVID ROELLGEN    PAUL B. LEDFORD, P.C.
Emmison, Doolittle, Kolb & Roellgen     Vincennes, Indiana
Vincennes, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE:    ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE:
    
ANDREW C. CHARNSTROM    MICHAEL J. LEWINSKI
MAUREEN E. WARD    HILARY G. BUTTRICK
Wooden & McLaughlin, LLP    Ice Miller
Indianapolis, Indiana     Indianapolis, Indiana

     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CITY OF VINCENNES,          )

                                 )
Appellant-Plaintiff,             )
                                 )
vs.                              )    
                                 )    No. 42A02-0402-CV-193
KEVIN EMMONS, D/B/A              )
CHEROKEE RENTALS,                )
JEFFREY HENDRIXSON,              )
ERIC KLEIN,                      )
                                 )
Appellee-Defendants.             )

    APPEAL FROM THE KNOX SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Robert L. Arthur, Judge
    Cause No. 42D02-0006-OV-130
42D02-0006-OV-132

    November 10, 2004

    OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

    The City of Vincennes (the “City”) appeals from the trial court’s order finding the Vincennes Rental Housing Code (the “housing code”) unconstitutional in an action by the City against landlords Kevin Emmons, doing business as Cherokee Rentals, Eric Klein, and Jeffrey Hendrixson See footnote (the “Landlords”) for failure to pay landlord registration fees in violation of the housing code. We affirm.

Whether the inspection provision of the housing code is unconstitutional; and

If the inspection provision is unconstitutional, whether it can be severed from the remainder of the housing code.

Addendum to Appellant’s Brief at 4-7; Vincennes, Indiana Code of Ordinances §§ 156.03 – 156.06 (emphasis added).
    The Landlords each owned real estate in the City which they operated as rental units. On July 3, 2000, the City filed an information for ordinance violation against each of the Landlords, alleging that they had failed to pay the annual landlord registration fee required by section 156.04 for multiple years in varying amounts. See footnote Although filed under separate cause numbers, the cases were treated as consolidated in the trial court because the issues were identical, and remain consolidated on appeal. By agreement of the parties, the case was submitted to the court on the parties’ briefs on the facts in issue. The Landlords filed their brief first and admitted that landlord registration fees were owed to the City pursuant to the housing code – although they disputed the amount – but contended that the housing code was unconstitutional due to the unreasonable search provisions. The City responded that the housing code was a valid exercise of the City’s police powers; that the Landlords lacked standing to raise the issue of the constitutionality of the search provisions because the fee provision under which they were charged is separate; and that if the inspection provision is found unconstitutional, it can be severed from the remainder of the housing code. The trial court entered an order which reads as follows: “The Court finds the ordinance at issue is un-constitutional in its present form. The Court finds for the [Landlords] and this case is dismissed.” Appellant’s Appendix at 49. The City filed a motion to correct error, which was denied, and this appeal ensued.See footnote

Schulz v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1041, 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. Under the federal test, to establish standing a plaintiff must allege a personal injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Alexander, 800 N.E.2d at 989.
The City contends that the Landlords do not have standing because any injury to them is only speculative. We disagree. Before a landlord can rent property, he must have an occupancy permit, which expires after two years. And before he can get an initial occupancy permit or renew an expiring one, the City must conduct an inspection. The inspection concerns the structural and mechanical aspects of the rental unit. The landlord is responsible for correcting any violation discovered during the inspection and may be subject to a one hundred dollar fine for every day the violation continues. Every two years, rental units are subject to a mandatory inspection, and it is clearly the Landlords’ interests which are implicated in the inspection; they therefore have standing to raise the constitutionality of the ordinance.