Fellow Bearflagger Digger, who resides in Sacramento, has been closely following the case of Steve and Virginia Pearcy (archive here), the idiots who made a national name for themselves by hanging a soldier in effigy on the front of “their“ house, one of whom continues to suck out whatever residual value my law degree from Boalt Hall may still have. Up until now (and even now, in the MSM), the debate has focused on whether or not a soldier hanged in effigy is protected speech or, to borrow a very tired cliché, the equivalent of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. [UPDATE: following my telephone conversation with Stephen Pearcy this morning, I now believe that that was the entire issue, and the landlord-tenant stuff was a red herring. I've deleted most of the original post, preserving only enough to make it clear to the reader why the rest is no longer there. My apologies to the Pearcys for repeating their tenants' hearsay as fact.]

In fact, as fellow-fellow Bearflagger Kevin Murphy rightly pointed out in a comment, this is not a First Amendment case at all. It would be if the Pearcys had placed the soldiers’ effigy on their own house, but they didn’t do that. As it turns out, the Pearcys reside in Berkeley, not Sacramento, and the Sacramento home is merely a rental property. [UPDATE: Stephen Pearcy has contacted me to advised that this is not true. Apparently, the tenants were gone before the effigy went up, so it was in fact "their house" in every sense of the word.]

According to Digger’s digging, as recently as August 2004 they rented the house to three young girls, Republicans all, and soon began harassing them for exercising their own First Amendment rights in the comfort of what was, at the time, their home. It would be a delicious irony if the display that got the Pearcys’ dander up had involved an effigy of a G.I. who was tortured and murdered in Vietnam, and who bore a sign reading “Thirty years ago, John Kerry lied, and I died.” Unfortunately, I don’t have any such tasty morsels for you. All the girls did display was another boring, blue Bush-Cheney sign, which appeared in one of their windows. The Pearcys then retaliated by placing a huge sign on their front yard announcing that “only an idiot will vote for The Idiot,” and threatening to paint John Kerry’s name up and down the sides of the house. Both were blatant violations of Section 1954(a) of the California Civil Code, which prohibits landlords from entering rented for property for any reason except:

1. In case of emergency.
2. To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5. [Relating to departing tenants and security deposits.]
3. When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
4. Pursuant to court order.

UPDATE: Apparently, that’s not quite right, either. According to Mr. Pearcy, they did not lease the entire house to the three girls, but reserved a studio for their private use. Thus, they had as much a right to go on or off the common areas as anyone else.

The remainder of the post has been deleted altogether, as it was a combination of rants + analysis based on the assumption that the Pearcys had (1) trespassed on the girls’ rental property, and (2) constructively evicted them for political reasons. According to Mr. Pearcy, neither of these is the case. So basically, we’re back to square one: the only thing the Pearcys appear to be guilty of is the non-crime of putting up an extremely offensive display on their own house – possibly a zoning law violation, possibly not even that. Since I don’t live anywhere near the affected zone, I frankly don’t care, either.

Unless anyone can come up with new evidence that the Pearcys are lying, I now consider this effigy thing a non-story.