Supreme Court Says Motel Owners Must Be Allowed To Challenge Warrantless Searches Of Guest Registries

Privacy

from the that's-kind-of-the-way-the-system-was-supposed-to-work-all-along dept

Mon, Jun 22nd 2015 11:38am — Tim Cushing

A smallish victory for Fourth Amendment protections comes today as the Supreme Court has struck down a Los Angeles ordinance that allowed police warrantless, on-demand access to hotel/motel guest records. This win is very limited, and the court's discussion of the issue at hand pertains solely to the Los Angeles statute and doesn't address the potential unconstitutionality of other, similar records sweeps granted by the Third Party Doctrine. Nor does it address the potential Fourth Amendment violations inherent to "pervasive regulation" of certain businesses -- like the records legally required to be collected and handed over on demand to law enforcement by entities like pawn shops, junk yards and firearms dealers.

The 5-4 decision focuses on the specifics of the Los Angeles statute, and it's those specifics that are problematic. The court finds that merely accessing these records without a warrant isn't necessarily unconstitutional, but rather that any demand for records cannot be challenged and that any challenging party can be fined or jailed.

The questions presented are whether facial challenges to statutes can be brought under the Fourth Amendment and, if so, whether this provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is facially invalid. We hold facial challenges can be brought under the Fourth Amendment. We further hold that the provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that requires hotel operators to make their registries available to the police on demand is facially unconstitutional because it penalizes them for declining to turn over their records without affording them any opportunity for precompliance review.

Because there is no reasonable avenue to challenge these searches, business owners are really only given one option: comply. This has the potential to lead to abusive behavior.

A hotel owner who refuses to give an officer access to his or her registry can be arrested on the spot. The Court has held that business owners cannot reasonably be put to this kind of choice. Camara, 387 U. S., at 533 (holding that “broad statutory safeguards are no substitute for individualized review, particularly when those safeguards may only be invoked at the risk of a criminal penalty”). Absent an opportunity for precompliance review, the ordinance creates an intolerable risk that searches authorized by it will exceed statutory limits, or be used as a pretext to harass hotel operators and their guests. Even if a hotel has been searched 10 times a day, every day, for three months, without any violation being found, the operator can only refuse to comply with an officer’s demand to turn over the registry at his or her own peril.

In the end, there's no warrant requirement. All that's needed is for the city's statute to provide an avenue for searches to be challenged. The court suggests administrative subpoenas but notes that it could take any form that similarly allows business owners to challenge the records search before the search occurs and helps prevent police from using the statute as a "pretext for harassment."

The dissent, written by Justice Scalia, claims that even this very narrow decision is too expansive. Scalia argues that the new requirement places an undue burden on law enforcement officers by potentially forcing them to obtain ex parte search warrants for every motel they visit, simply because they won't know in advance which owners will challenge the search. In a city with over 2,000 hotels, the dissent sees this as unreasonable and untenable.

The prevailing opinion refers to the dissent's fears as "overblown," stating that a vast majority of businesses will still be compliant with law enforcement requests. In both Scalia's and the government's eyes, any alteration of the existing statute can only lead to a majority of motel owners refusing instant access to registry information, but this narrow view turns rare exceptions into the rule and fails to consider the numerous options still available to law enforcement to perform unchallenged searches.

The decision doesn't demand warrants or subpoenas for every motel registry check. It only orders these measures be in place for when they are needed, giving business owners the chance to challenge warrantless searches without facing jail time or fines. This is more consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and it still provides the LAPD plenty of leeway to perform motel spot checks without worrying about extra paperwork. It's a small, extremely narrow win for the Fourth Amendment rights of Los Angeles motel owners, but beyond that, it's of very limited use elsewhere.

Patel Decision (PDF)Patel Decision (Text)

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: 4th amendment, motel, privacy, records, supreme court, warrantless searches

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Geno0wl (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:44am

Supreme Court for you
Pretty disturbed that a clear violation of the 4th amendment comes down 5-4.

Maybe Scalia needs to go back a re-read 1984. Because I don't think he read the same book I read.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:50am

Again, an extremely narrow and largely useless ruling by the SCOTUS. It seems like they intentionally avoid any of the big picture questions and always choose to rule as narrowly as humanly possible so the precedent can be applied to almost nothing. For the SCOTUS, this is extremely disappointing as they are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and almost always avoid making a ruling that can be widely applied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:58am

Re: Supreme Court for you
I think that must a misquote. I think he meant to say his last book was read in 1984.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:19pm

Scalia, the "originalist", keeps making up the law as he goes along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:32pm

Re:
Its just proof that Scalia is corrupt.

A lot of people like to call these justices either left or right... well I am pretty far right and consider Scalia to be fucking scum.

It has been long clear that neither the left nor the right, sitting up there at the court on high, have any fucking idea of the law.

3rd Party Doctrine is nothing but a farce to end run everyone around the 4th.

And a special note to you Mr. Scalia. I hope you are discovered in a compromising situation one day where a person acting like a cop ask's for your private records AND GETS THEM. I mean it is an undue burden after all for a business to challenge these things right? Your fucking words you smarmy anti-American scumbag!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:34pm

A law requiring police to act like police. Why exactly are these people cops to begin with if they require having the laws they are expected to enforce need to be explained to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re:
Its just proof that Scalia is corrupt.
You're full of shit.

While I agree with the majority, and disagree with Justice Scalia's dissent, I nevertheless found his reasoning pursuasive: Arguably, his approach is more faithful to current precedent than the majority's. I just happen to like the majority's outcome better, so I'm willing to discount the recent precedent on ”closely regulated businesses.”

But Justice Scalia's approach is not corrupt. You're just full of shit when you say that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vidiot (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re:
Let's be very clear, though, that there is NOT a special place reserved in Hell for Justice Scalia.

He gets a regular ol' place, just like everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 2:53pm

Re:
Because anyone who actually shows knowledge of, and especially respect for, the law is immediately struck from the pool of potential police officers.

/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 3:24pm

Police
Now, how do they prevent the police officers from telling motel owners they will go to jail for refusing the request even though that isn't true?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 22 Jun 2015 @ 3:57pm

When I read stories about the Supreme Court issuing narrow rulings and avoiding the larger issues, I get this image in my head of a political cartoon showing the justices as firefighters in a burning building. They've just finished putting out a fire in a trashcan and are congratulating each other on a job well done while the rest of the place burns behind them.

I really wish I had the artistic talent to draw it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 4:49pm

Re: Police
Come now, have you no trust in the system? I'm sure they'd get a good, stern talking to if they got caught doing that more than a dozen or so times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 5:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
Any Justice sitting on the Supreme Court is required to support the Constitution. Scalia made it clear he is okay with wiping his ass with it.

That is corruption, if you are not able to understand that then you have no right to complain about the side you hate when they do corrupt stuff.

It would be good if you suffer the same fate that Scalia so richly deserves... the fate of a corrupt cop screwing your life away because some judge saw fit to let your rights fall away for the sake of legal expediency.

The number of innocents in jail is more than enough already, you seem to think more innocents are needed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 5:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scalia made it clear he is okay with wiping his ass with it.

That is corruption...

Is this the meaning of "corrupt" you have in mind?

"Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain."

If so, I haven't seen any evidence of money or personal gain to Scalia regarding this decision. Or do you mean the broader definition "morally degenerate and perverted"? In which case that's more or less a matter of opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnonCow, 22 Jun 2015 @ 8:44pm

Motel owners should be REQUIRED to challenge warrant-less searches of guest registries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]