Motel Decides It Should Just Start Faxing All Guest Info To Local Police Every Night

Privacy

from the corporate-suckup dept

Mon, Apr 27th 2015 9:26am — Tim Cushing

The Third Party Doctrine is ridiculous. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies routinely exploit this loophole to warrantlessly access all sorts of data because of the stupid assertion that anything you "voluntarily" turn over to a third party carries no expectation of privacy. The agencies blow right past the reality of the situation: that any "voluntary" exchange of personal data for services is anything but voluntary. Service providers won't provide you with an internet connection or cell phone service without collecting massive amounts of usage data. Hotels and motels won't rent you a room unless you tell them who you are and provide documentation to back up your claims.

So, it's stupid all over and no one's in any hurry to fix it because drugs need to be warred against and terrorists must be handcrafted by FBI undercover agents and the rest of whatever. The courts have generally refused to stretch the Fourth Amendment to cover the data created by these involuntary exchanges. That's a problem and one that is only very slowly being addressed.

Motel 6 has just decided to make it worse. While warrantless access to motel records is being challenged in the Supreme Court, the chain has decided to preemptively strip away any privacy expectations that may result from court rulings and just hand it all over to law enforcement because sometimes criminals stay in motel rooms.

City police have arrested four people staying at the Motel 6 on Jefferson Boulevard as a result of the hotel chain's agreement to provide police with a daily guest list, Mayor Scott Avedisian said Tuesday.

The names of Motel 6 guests, which police then check for outstanding warrants, is one of five steps Motel 6 corporate managers agreed to take in response to a string of high-profile incidents and concerns the establishment was becoming a haven for passing criminals.

Everything about this is pure bootlicking dickishness. See if you can finish reading this statement without looking for something to wipe all the "smug" off you.

"We know everyone who is staying in the hotel tonight," [Mayor Scott] Avedisian said in a phone interview after a meeting with Motel 6 executives that also included Warwick police chief Col. Stephen M. McCartney and Seekonk, Mass., Town Administrator Shawn E. Cadime.

Great. And that's your business why? Oh, because some arrests were made. A modicum of successful law enforcement cures all privacy ills, etc.

Motel 6's spokesmouths aren't exactly coming across as champions of the people either.

As of now, guests who check-in at Warwick’s Motel 6 will not be told their names are on a list that goes to the police station every night.

Alerting motel guests that local police know their whereabouts "is not a normal process of our check-in,” said Victor Glover, a vice president of safety and security for G6 Hospitality, the parent company for Motel 6. “I don’t know that we have any plans of instituting that as we move forward.”

Now that Motel 6 has stepped up to serve as a purveyor of moderately-priced rooms and a fully compliant police informant, law enforcement's foot is completely wedged in the door between room rentals and personal privacy. Mayor Avedisian plans to use Motel 6's kowtowing as leverage against other hotels and motels in the area.

Avedisian said now that Motel 6 has agreed to share its national "do not rent" list of problem guests, he intends to reach out to the Rhode Island Hospitality Association to see if other establishments in the city would be willing to do the same.

I have no problem with private businesses maintaining lists of customers they won't do business with and passing on this information to police if the list contains suspected criminals. But that's miles away from what Motel 6 has agreed to do -- hand over information on everybody who rents a room before the police even ask for it. That's just begging for a lawsuit.

The Warwick police chief says his department never demanded this level of compliance. This was Motel 6's own offering in response to a couple of high profile sex trafficking arrests and pressure from the city, which threatened it with lawsuits and additional regulation. Rather than recognize it as the sort of unfortunate thing that happens from time to time and just move on, Motel 6's execs decided the solution was to fax over a list of guests every evening. The police have no idea on what sort of privacy protections it will put into force -- if anything. Police Chief Stephen McCartney has passed the buck to the state attorney general... as if that mainly-prosecutorial office is going to issue tough restrictions on data retention or meaningful privacy protections.

The Third Party Doctrine is already terrible enough. What it doesn't need is do-gooders like Motel 6 erasing what minimal line there is between its customers' data and law enforcement.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: hotel records, law enforcement, police, privacy
Companies: motel 6

83 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:23am

This 'voluntarily' thing is debatable. I would love to stay at places and use services without providing my personal data, you know, take my money and gimme the service but you can't do it in this age for many things. Technically you don't need any identification to provide a room for anyone. Nor any info to provide a mobile line. Fixed line and internet would need only the location and nothing else. The anonymous customer didn't pay? Cut the line.

But alas the Government itself mandates identification on many of those services as a security measure for everybody involved. So where it is truly voluntary?

Paying by cash is still the most anonymous way to get somwe things (along with bitcoin nowadays). We haven't seen the death of cold hard cash yet because the powers themselves benefit on the anonymity of it for their excusable businesses. So, yeah, privacy will be maintained for those who can pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:32am

I wonder if motel 6 has a privacy policy? Could this go against their own policy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MikeC (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:38am
  
  Re: privacy policy
  Guess is doesn't violate Motel 6 Privacy:
  
  Compliance with Law
  
  We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.
  
  Their choice I guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:21am
    
    Re: Re: privacy policy
    Guess is doesn't violate Motel 6 Privacy:
    
    I'd say it does violate it. "We may disclose ..." is not equal to "We will disclose ..."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: privacy policy
      I'd say it does violate it. "We may disclose ..." is not equal to "We will disclose ..."
      
      So whether they disclose the information or not, it doesn't violate the policy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tqk (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: privacy policy
        
        I'd say it does violate it. "We may disclose ..." is not equal to "We will disclose ..."
        
        So whether they disclose the information or not, it doesn't violate the policy.
        
        "May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances. It's used by lawyers to cover their client's butt.
        
        "Will" implies something entirely different; a certainty. At the very least it's misleading, and as a potential customer I'd be incensed that I was lied to by someone who's taking my money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: privacy policy
        "May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances.
        
        I think you're reading way too much into that word. If you see the word "may" in a contract you're signing, it would be foolish to assume that it means what you say absent any other specifics. Rather, it means this is something that the contract permits - nothing more. Informal usage may (ha!) be a different story, but this context is a terms of service document.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: privacy policy
        ""May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances."
        
        I disagree. When I see "may" in contracts, I interpret it to mean that the party can engage in that behavior if they choose to, and if there' no conditionals in the contract, then they can do so for any reason and without notifying the other parties in the contract.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Coyne Tibbets (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: privacy policy
        "May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances. It's used by lawyers to cover their client's butt.
        
        More properly, the word is the "permissive" form of "may"..."we are allowed". Since this is an "agreement" between "you" and the "chain" as defined by the chain, allowing itself to perform the act, the permissive form in this usage is best expressed as "we reserve the right to". As in:
        
        We reserve the right to disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MikeC (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: privacy policy
  Further -- franchisee's don't have to comply at all:
  
  Franchisees
  
  Some of our locations are owned and operated by independent franchisees that are neither owned nor controlled by G6 Hospitality, its affiliates or subsidiaries. Each franchisee may collect Guest Information and use such information for its own purposes. G6 Hospitality does not control the use or access of such information collected by franchisees.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re: privacy policy
    Note: "Each franchisee may collect Guest Information and use such information for its own purposes."
    Motel 6 is not a LEO.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 5:29pm
  
  Re:
  Remember, "privacy" policies are almost always used to explain how and when companies don't protect your privacy. They're to cover their ass, not yours.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:34am

It's voluntary in the sense that the government is transparent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:39am

Another entry
I've just added another company to my "never do business with" list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: Another entry
  Were you really planning on staying at a Motel 6 before this article came out?
  
  Perhaps I am wrong, but I would imagine that the majority of their clientele are prostitutes or their customers, so I would think that this is probably not the best marketing move they have made.
  
  It may be that they are not all disgusting, dirty, poorly-maintained, sub-par to begin with rooms, but the one time I actually walked into a Motel 6 (granted, a long time ago), I decided it would be safer to stay in my car.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:11am
    
    Re: Re: Another entry
    There is a Motel 6 walking distance from my workplace. It's an industrial park in an otherwise bad part of town and I used to see prostitutes on the corner every day when I left.
    
    The motel management was sick of it but being the cheapest place you attract that sort of clientele. I do know that they have been asking corporate for new tools to fight this.
    
    About a year ago, they had raids every day for several days. After that, they remodeled and the place is clean and nice and I never see any shady people hanging around anymore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Reality bites, 28 Apr 2015 @ 9:08am
      
      The shady people run the motel 6 now.
      Criminals don't like competition so they got rid of them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re: Another entry
    "Were you really planning on staying at a Motel 6 before this article came out?"
    
    I don't know if many people actually plan to stay at a Motel 6 -- but I have stayed at many of them nonetheless. For example, when I'm on a long road trip and stumble into a town at 2am and I just need a bed, I tend to gravitate towards Motel 6 (or HoJo's, or other national chains of similar status) for the same reason that people eat at McDonald's: what you get may suck, but it's cheap and you know what it will be. Joe's Random Fleabag Motel could very well be a lot worse.
    
    (No, I'm not going to pay for a good quality room when I'm literally going to just be using the bed for a few hours.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 8:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Another entry
      (No, I'm not going to pay for a good quality room when I'm literally going to just be using the bed for a few hours.)
      
      That is exactly what some of their other cliental say :D
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James Burkhardt (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re: Another entry
    Yeah, that assumption that cheap hotels are only used for illegal activities? That's what allows this kind of bullshit to go on. Id imagine that assumption is wrong. For one, if I wouldn't sleep there, why would I fuck there?
    
    Drugs (users and dealers) are more likely actually. But even then, if I travel, I normally don't have the cash to afford a more upscale place. And normally the only thing I need is a place to rest my head. Most Motel 6's I've been too are clean enough for that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2015 @ 12:01am
    
    Re: Re: Another entry
    Motel 6 is your basic cheap decent motel. I've stayed in them dozens of times when travelling, including a couple of them at regular destinations where I've had 10+ stays. I've never had a sense of anything inappropriate going on (drugs, prostitution, etc) though maybe it's because the specific ones I've been in were in locations not conducive to that sort of thing. But either way, I'm not going there any more, because of this police state complicity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:39am

We'll leave the light on for you...

...and the door open for any law enforcement agencies that want to check in on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PlagueSD (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Ahh, you beat me to it. I was going to post, "We'll leave the light on so law enforcement know's what room you're in."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  you have to leave the door open, because if you lock the door -- and have a working toilet in the room -- then you have the potential of disposing of the evidence of a crime you might be committing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    They have working toilets in a Motel 6?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:41am

Companies are people, and you transact with them for a room. Where is the third party?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: third party doctrine
  Companies are people, and you transact with them for a room. Where is the third party?.
  
  You are one, the government is another, and the business (in this case a motel) is the third party.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LduN (profile), 29 Apr 2015 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  At the fanciest place "your" (not yours anymore) money can afford!
  1st party: When LEOs realise they get all this info for free
  2nd party: When LEOs/SWAT bust down the motel room door, just `cause
  3rd party: They need to blow all that cash/assets that were seized because, well you know... it was there?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eddy, 1 May 2015 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re:
  The hotel is the 3rd party. The other 2 are the state and the defendant in a criminal proceeding. There's no legal privilege with a service provider the way there would be with your attorney or doctor.
  
  I'm not endorsing this state of affairs, just answering your question about what they mean by 'third party'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:51am

Unfortunately...
...this will undoubtedly catch on: lazy, unregulated third-party intel collection + authoritative "trust us" attitudes. What could possibly go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
afn29129 (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:51am

Master Pass-Keys
Master Pass-Keys will be provided to all police in the off-chance they might want to have a looksie as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:58am

Spread the word
I was trying to think of a way to let everyone in the US know about this. When Motel 6's occupancy goes to around 1%, their policy will change (less than around 60% is critical for most hotels or even motels).

Maybe the big medial companies will help...nah, that's just crazy thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:07am

I've stayed at Motel 6 multiple times, and the rooms were fine. It's not the top of my list, but not the bottom either.

The most recent hotel I stayed at was not a Motel 6. It was clearly serving the "hourly trade". I needed a basic room for sleeping and a parking lot with good security, so my requirements apparently overlapped with theirs. Not
a surprise.. it has happened before.

Lower priced hotels are far more likely to get that reputation. The people using the rooms aren't going to be using a pool, exercise room, club room, free happy hour drinks, business center, airport shuttle, concierge or all of those other amenities that justify paying much more for the room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:26am

I guess this decides it for me.
I don't think I'll stay at a Motel 6 ever again. Wait, I don't stay there now! They may be cheap, but they are noxious, at least in my little experience with them. I'd rather pay a bit more and stay at a reasonable hotel/motel, or sleep in my car at a rest stop if necessary!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:31am

Story has already been added to their Wikipedia Page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motel_6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:10pm
  
  Re:
  Now we wait for the unauthorized editing, corporate style...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:33am

slippery flat area?
this doesn't even seem to require a slope..
what's the difference between this and the argument that police can come in and search the room thoroughly, since the maid is allowed to enter the room and move things around?
I really don't see a difference between that logic and supplying the list of names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Burkhardt (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:44am
  
  Re: slippery flat area?
  Has a court actually agreed that the police can come in and search a room without a warrant any time the maid can? If so, then why did the FBI need to pose as cable operators to get into that hotel room? And why did that approach denied and the evidence thrown out?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re: slippery flat area?
    Because the 'cable operator' is a third party -whether ficticious or not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - James Burkhardt (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
      I dont understand your comment. You are implictly answering yes to my first question, as shown by answering the second, conditional question. So please, enlighten me as to the court case that ruled that.
      
      As to your answer of my second question-Why, if they could get in whenever the maid could (which is all the time, do not disturb or not) would them pretending to be a 'third' party (police would also be a third party, so I fail to see the distinction) help them gain access to the room? I guess because they dont have to worry about the 'safety bolt' then?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        I dont understand your comment.
        The guy who replied to you obviously did not catch your reference.
        
        Why don't you give him some links to the Techdirt stories on the case?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Oblate (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:19pm
    
    Re: Re: slippery flat area?
    Has a court actually agreed that the police can come in and search a room without a warrant any time the maid can?
    
    If that were true then you would see "Do Not Disturb" hang tags outside of every drug dealers house.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re: slippery flat area?
    According to Riddell Law, a warrant is (in most cases) required to search a hotel room. Being allowed in by the hotel or its employees is not sufficient as long as the guest is legally occupying the room.
    
    Generally, “a hotel employee may enter a room in performance of its duties, but they cannot per se authorize or give consent to a police search of that room.” State v. Miller, 77 Ohio App.3d 305, 602 N.E.2d 296 (8th Dist.1991), citing Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964).
    
    The only way to give up your privacy interest in the hotel room is to:
    
    Check out;
    Return the key without paying for another night;
    Voluntarily abandoning the room;
    Be kicked out of the hotel (evicted from the room by taking affirmative steps to repossess the room, such as asking the guest to leave).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - James Burkhardt (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
      I thought so. Thank you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
      The only way to give up your privacy interest in the hotel room is to...
      Your list is not exhaustive.
      
      For one, consent may be given when the DEA shows up at your door, as held in this recent (unpublished) decision from the 11th Circuit, U.S. v Johnson (April 24, 2015).
      Here, the district court did not err in denying the first motion to suppress on the basis that the agents obtained voluntary consent to enter the hotel room. At the suppression hearing, the district court was presented with two conflicting versions of events . . .
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        (Just for the record, that wasn't my list. That was a quote from the website I cited.)
        
        "For one, consent may be given when the DEA shows up at your door"
        
        That's addressing a different thing entirely: where the guest is giving consent to the search. My assumption is that the same rules apply there as apply everywhere else. What I was quoting was specifically talking about the hotel giving consent to a search, not the guest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        What I was quoting was specifically talking about the hotel giving consent to a search, not the guest.
        I briefly skimmed your link, but let's instead focus on what you excerpted.
        • Check out;
        • Return the key without paying for another night;
        • Voluntarily abandoning the room;
        • . . .
        Those first three list items are actions typically performed by the guest.
        
        In fact when the excerpt asserts “The only way to give up your privacy interest in the hotel room is to”, a native reader of English with any smidgen of experience at hotels would regard that as a list of actions performed by the guest.
        
        The list just isn't exhaustive. When it asserts “only” — it's plain wrong on the “only”. That's all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        James Burkhardt (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        Id argue that allowing DEA agents to search your room does not give up your privacy interest in the room. You haven't given a blanket right for everyone, everywhere, anytime, to look into that room. You have only given a temporary pass to search the room to a specific set of individuals. If they came back tomorrow, you can deny them then, because you still have a privacy interest in the room
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        If they came back tomorrow...
        That might be a good argument—if those three girls hadn't left the room in handcuffs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeGladIdontdoRevenge, 27 Apr 2015 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        allowing DEA agents to search your room does not give up your privacy interest.
        
        WHAT BULLSHIT
        
        What if the previous tenet left meth in the airducts?
        Willing to spend a nickel in jail?
        
        You are truly fucking stupid (you CAN FIX this) in my opinion, that or a .gov fucktarded shill.
        
        Furthermore, they SPY on the phone line going into the room, and they hand the keys to the room door lock to the COPS. Along with your (or what used to be) your vehicle. The cops aren't breaking the door down, they're using the FUCKING KEY!
        There’s no negotiations about property, it's SEIZED and GONE.
        
        (I am actually strong enough to hold the fucking DOOR knob closed against the COPS, and I DID, but ultimately it did NOT help.)
        
        They aren't getting warrants the OWNER IS CALLING THE COPS and then HANDING OVER THE FUCKING KEY.
        
        I speak with AUTHORITY. I KNOW. I LOST SHIT.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Padpaw (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        why are you typing like that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        
        I speak with AUTHORITY.
        why are you typing like that?
        The caps lock guy is typing to convince us that he's a narc.
        
        He's probably trying to remind us all of Hoffa v United States (1966).
        . . . James Hoffa was president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. During the course of the trial he occupied a three-room suite in the Andrew Jackson Hotel in Nashville. One of his constant companions throughout the trial was the petitioner King, president of the Nashville local of the Teamsters Union. Edward Partin, a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and a local Teamsters Union official there, made repeated visits to Nashville during the period of the trial. On these visits he frequented the Hoffa hotel suite, and was continually in the company of Hoffa and his associates, including King, in and around the hotel suite, the hotel lobby, the courthouse, and elsewhere in Nashville. During this period Partin made frequent reports to a federal agent named Sheridan concerning conversations he said Hoffa and King had had with him and with each other . . .
        
        [W]e hold that no right protected by the Fourth Amendment was violated in the present case.
        
        So that's another way to give up your privacy interest in a hotel room: Invite a government informant in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: slippery flat area?
        ( Oh, Fenderson, btw —if you remember from a few days ago— the case that just I linked above, Johnson, briefly discusses the governments's burden on voluntary consent, with case cites. See p.6: “The government bears the burden of proving that consent was voluntarily and freely given and was not the product of coercion or mere submission to police authority.” The case also illustrates how that sometimes gets applied in practice. )
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MikeC (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:36am

Does that make the info public knowledge - IE FOIA?
Can you request those lists w/a FOIA req? Do they notice local officials and other leading lights who might use that hotel for shall we say extra curricular activities? Could end up with all kinds of interesting scenarios?

Want to bet when someone is going to request a copy of all those lists in conjunction with some court civil or criminal case? They are opening themselves up to all kinds of non-intended consequences here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jasmine Charter, 27 Apr 2015 @ 10:50am

One more place...
One more place I'll never stay again. I'm not a criminal and I don't expect the place I'm patronizing to treat me like a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yankinwaoz (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:02am

How is this news?
I don't understand why Motel 6 is being picked on for this. This is not news. Nor is it unique to Motel 6.

Many cities, states, and countries require hotels to track their customers and report them all to the police. So I always assume that my information given to a hotel is being passed directly to local law enforcement because in most cases, it is.

For example: in Italy you are required by law to leave your passport with the innkeeper. They, in turn, are required to allow the cops to rummage through the passports and take whatever info they want.

It sounds me to like Providence, RI is just late the game in realizing that they can demand this data. Motel 6 is very used to this, because they already do it any many, many other places. So do all the other hotels.

And yes, the local vice squads are the LEO's that are most interested in this data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: How is this news?
  It's news (new information) to some people and that it is still happening is still relevant to others who already knew or suspected that it was going on or was likely to be going on. There shouldn't be an expiration on people being outraged by this. A good boycott or a lawsuit could go a long way in reducing the practice and maybe the person to launch such actions hasn't heard about it yet or hasn't felt that it reached enough of a feverpitch yet to do something about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Burkhardt (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re: How is this news?
  Demanding/Requesting the data =/= automatic handoff before the data is asked for. Italy =/= the US. If the only example you have of a motel automatically handing data to the police proactively is hotels in Italy holding on to your ID (really? Does that mean once i check in I can't leave till I check out? How does one take a lengthly trip to Italy and see the sights? Or are the pla ces you are talking about hourly rentals? Cause motel 6 is by the night...) so that if the police want to they can come by and take down your information, you are making several false equivilencies, notably the differences between US and Italian law, and the difference between handing information the police ask for and faxing your passport over the the police just in case.
  
  This is news because instead of doing the former, they are doing the latter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: How is this news?
  Many cities, states, and countries require hotels to track their customers and report them all to the police.
  
  If it's not commonplace in the US then it's still news here. I am hoping it is news...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re: How is this news?
  There's a lot of difference between being required to give your data to the police on request and voluntarily sending all your data to the police automatically.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:13am

City of Los Angeles v Patel
There's a related case pending before the Supreme Court. Here's the SCOTUS blog summary...

City of Los Angeles v Patel
Docket No.: 13-1175
Op. Below: 9th Cir.
Argument: Mar 3, 2015
Opinion: TBD
Vote: TBD
Author: TBD
Term: OT 2014

Issue: (1) Whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are permitted under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest-supplied information is mandated by law and an ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry, and if so, whether the ordinance is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless it expressly provides for pre-compliance judicial review before the police can inspect the registry.

(Slightly reformatted, emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JoeO, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:13am

This is were this article falls flat in its face: "Rather than recognize it as the sort of unfortunate thing that happens from time to time and just move on." The hotel could reduce criminal activity by simply advertising their site-specific policy.

If the author has never seen a hotel degenerate into a safe haven for criminality, then they need to get out more.

Sending registration info to the cops is problematic, but there are two sides to the issue, and both must be considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  You don't need to give your guest list to the cops every night to prevent that situation though. The cops can increase patrols if there are high crime rates in the area.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  ... then they need to get out more.
  Why would anyone want to go out? The whole god-damn country is turning into a totalitarian prison. Checkpoints, searches, arbitrary detention, show your id here, show your id there. Now take off your shoes and your belt buckle, empty your pockets, put your keys and cellphones in the tray.
  
  If I didn't live here, I certainly wouldn't visit for fun. Maybe for an educational experience, like visiting the Soviet Union.
  
  ... there are two sides to the issue...
  The right side and the wrong side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Padpaw (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 4:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    you could always move to Canada, before people start fleeing the states en masse when it gets so much worse
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 4:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, we can't move to Canada. You spread myth now, as it isn't POSSIBLE to "move to Canada", what we need to do is face these oath breaking pieces of shit down. Why people allowed this oath breaking shit without serious bloody screaming and outright revolt in the first place is the question? Been allowed to be PUSSIFIED by the system is what it is. YOU FEAR DEATH. PUSSY.
      
      Tell ya what, go have an NDE, and or NEARLY DIE, then you will get MY ATTITUDE, FUCK THESE TREASONOUS MOTHERFUCKERS.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  The hotel could reduce criminal activity by simply advertising their site-specific policy.
  
  Yeah, but they didn't.
  
  Alerting motel guests that local police know their whereabouts "is not a normal process of our check-in,” said Victor Glover, a vice president of safety and security for G6 Hospitality, the parent company for Motel 6. “I don’t know that we have any plans of instituting that as we move forward.”
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re:
  "The hotel could reduce criminal activity by simply advertising their site-specific policy."
  
  ...which would also reduce the number of non-criminal people willing to stay there.
  
  "If the author has never seen a hotel degenerate into a safe haven for criminality, then they need to get out more."
  
  I don't see any sign that the author (or anyone commenting on the story) is unaware that this happens. That's not the issue. The issue is having the hotel autoreport everyone just for the crime of using their hotel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...which would also reduce the number of non-criminal people willing to stay there.
    
    Hence why they are careful not to make the policy public. If they really believed that their actions were justified in order to decrease criminals or potential criminals from using their facilities, then they would have no problem making their actions, and the justifications for it, plain to see for anyone who might be thinking of staying there. That they don't makes it pretty clear that they don't think their actions would be seen as an acceptable price for staying there by their guests.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex, 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:15am

Quality depends on location
The quality depends on the location. I've stayed at them many times while driving cross-country and they're usually decent motels in rural areas just off of interstates. I doubt there are many prostitutes at these places because of the number of traveling families and the easier business at truck stops.

The shady places have been in urban areas, especially away from interstates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stan (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:28am

We'll leave the light on
We'll leave the handcuffs nearby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stan (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 11:32am

Privacy Policy
Does Motel Six's privacy policy prevent them from sending video feeds from every room to the local police?

That sure would make things easier for the police.

The motel could change their name to "Motel 6 to life".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 12:14pm

i will never ever stay there again..and i have no record..I'm former corrections officer who does not feel invasion of privacy is a good things in a free nation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zonker, 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:59pm

This policy will continue until the day the Chief of Police shows up on the list for a room with a single bed next to someone who isn't his wife. Then the policy will suddenly and quietly be terminated (with a possible list of trumped up charges on the Motel 6 owners in retaliation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noneya beeswax, 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:06pm

So when the police break in and accidentally murder a family. Flash bang the baby and steal the cash. That ok for them?
Police lie too much for me to trust them.
Actions speak louder than words!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeGladIdontdoRevenge, 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:57pm

sacramento - Alhambra - Motel 6
You know the area, near Safeway, on alhambra, and that street parallel to the freeway.
That rat commie SPIES on the PHONES LINES.
AND call the cops on ya, who will then take your vehicle and property and put you in jail.

PURE EVIL SHIT
NEVER STAY THERE!

You are better off just doing a left turn, right turn left, right, left, right and using intuition and judgement; randomly park and sleep in your car in a residential neighbourhood (say near McKinley Park / or anywhere basically in East Sac.) to get LESS TROUBLE, Save MONEY, and not GENERATE DATA, probably not even noticed if you don't fuck with the home owners. (where "fuck with" means SEEN BY, if seen, MOVE, and pick another spot.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 4:20pm

YELP
http://www.yelp.com/biz/motel-6-warwick?fsid=zqHuM02nMDSBvAPcHmna9A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 4:23pm

sounds like more hero worship

"the police are always right and always honest, simply because they are police"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 1:21am

If they're proactively sending their daily guest list to the police, it doesn't seem like they'd be under any legal obligation to send a complete list. Sounds like a good way to be able to start offering a $100/night "Enhanced Privacy Package" option to the additional services list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 28 Apr 2015 @ 2:51pm

Motel 6 Rat Fink Snitches
Any American citizen staying at the rat fink snitch establishment Motel 6 deserves what they get.

Boycott Motel 6. Hit the collaborating rat fink snitches right where it hurts, the pocket book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chip D Monk, 29 Apr 2015 @ 12:58pm

If you think there's a chance in a million that the family member whose car you're driving has any outstanding warrants for unpaid parking tickets you could have an interesting evening should you have made the mistake of staying at Motel 6. (LOL)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bman, 3 May 2015 @ 7:12am

What you get at Motel 6
Up until this news; I as an OTR truck driver had spent many nights in the Motel 6s that do have truck parking across this country. They usually weren't bad for the price, and I have never encountered prostitutes or criminals at any of them.
When I first learn that I was going to be spending a night or few in a motel; I would look at the various motel/hotel books that I had and seek those that were enroute and had parking. I would then call the ones on my list and ask about prices, sit down restaurants and convenience stores with-in walking distance, ect. I would then make my choice.
Motel 6's usually have room doors that go outside whereas Super 8's usually have room doors open into hallways. Super 8's include free Internet and Motel 6's usually charged extra for it. I have not yet been to a Motel 6 that serves breakfast, so you have to spend more money at a restaurant or fast food joint. Super 8's have always had breakfast, but some only serve continental breakfasts and other include hard boiled eggs, waffles, cereal, etc.
In cases where a town had both motels; usually the price difference between the two was only $10 or so.
I have also spent nights a a few Americas Best Value Inn. The ones that I was at were like Super 8's, but the buildings were older and therefore lower cost.
If anyone wants to send comments about the above-mentioned insane boot-licking policy to Morel 6's corporate office;click here and check your e-mail browser: http://www.motel6.com/about/contact_us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A, 2 Dec 2015 @ 10:15pm

Nice
Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]