Minnesota's Top Court Says Hotel Guest Records Are Protected By The State's Constitution

from the take-your-bait-and-tackle-elsewhere,-coppers dept

Minnesota’s top court has redefined the contours of the Third Party Doctrine for the betterment of the state’s residents and visitors. [h/t FourthAmendment.com] The case deals with hotel/motel guest records, which have historically been given almost no legal protection.

The argument against protection is that guests give up this information voluntarily to private companies. But you can’t get a room without giving up this information, so it’s not nearly as voluntary as the government portrays it. This came to head in the US Supreme Court back in 2015. The nation’s Supreme Court decided — very narrowly — that a Los Angeles ordinance giving police officers warrantless access to guest records violated hotel owners’ rights by not giving them any way to challenge demands (other than going to jail).

The Minnesota Supreme Court does not rely on this decision despite reaching a conclusion that results in better protections for hotel guests. The difference between the two cases is the entity petitioning the court. In the US Supreme Court case, it was motel operators arguing warrantless access violated the Fourth Amendment, if not California’s own Constitution. In this case, it’s a guest arguing against the warrantless access to his records — something the Minnesota court points out in a footnote. From the decision [PDF]:

The court of appeals also concluded that Leonard erroneously relied on City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015). State v. Leonard, 923 N.W.2d 52. Patel involved a challenge by hotel operators, not hotel guests, concerning the operators’ constitutional rights, therefore avoiding the issue of the third-party doctrine.

Nevertheless, the Third Party Doctrine is explored by the state court, leading it to a conclusion that narrow that doctrine’s reach. The resulting conviction for check forgery began with nothing but a fishing expedition.

Law enforcement officers arrived at a Bloomington hotel on August 14, 2015, for a hotel interdiction. The officers were not responding to a particular call. Without a warrant and without any individualized suspicion of criminal activity, the officers told the clerk on duty that they wanted to examine the guest registry and to be provided with the name of any guest who paid in cash.

State law says all hotel operators must collect this information and make it available to law enforcement. If they don’t (like in the city of Los Angeles), the hotel operators can be charged with a crime. But this isn’t about the hotel operator, who wasn’t involved in this challenge of a law enforcement search. It’s about the defendant, who argued a warrantless, suspicionless search of hotel records violated the state’s Constitution.

This was the end result of the officers’ perusal of hotel records.

The officers then ran a background check and found that Leonard had prior arrests for, among other things, drugs, firearms, and fraud. Based on this information, the officers developed an individualized suspicion that Leonard was involved in criminal activity and decided to conduct a “knock and talk” at the door of Leonard’s hotel room. When Leonard heard the officers knock, he opened the door and gave them limited consent to search the room, but withheld access to his laptop, cell phone, and a file folder where several checks were visible. The officers subdued Leonard through a physical struggle after he tried to flee. After securing a search warrant, the officers discovered over $2,000 worth of suspicious checks paid to the order of “Spencer Alan Hill,” over $5,000 in cash, and check-printing paper.

Paying in cash shouldn’t be treated as reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Perfectly innocent people often engage in this activity, if only to lower their digital footprint. Here’s another excellent footnote from the court:

The dissent contends that Leonard did not exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy in his sensitive location information. We disagree. In a world of electronic money transfers using debit cards, credit cards, and other electronic means of payment, Leonard’s cash payment evidences an intent to conceal his presence at the hotel.

Both the trial court and the state appeals court found in favor of the government. They said warrantless, suspicionless searches of hotel guest records did not violate the state’s Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable searches.” The top court disagrees.

First off, the officers had no compelling reason to show up at the hotel to demand records.

The Bloomington Police officers had never heard of Leonard when they arrived at the hotel. They had not procured a warrant to search anything. Nor were they called to the hotel by its employees because of concerns regarding any particular guest. Thus, it is undisputed that they acted without individualized suspicion when they conducted the hotel interdiction and examined the guest registry.

The court goes on to say that even though this fishing expedition resulted in the discovery of criminal activity, there are several reasons for people to conceal their identity from hotel operators and several reasons one’s privacy might be unreasonably invaded by a suspicionless search of hotel records.

Imagine instead that Leonard had stayed overnight at the hotel to attend a political or religious conference in the hotel ballroom, or that he had stayed overnight before a medical appointment in hopes of keeping a diagnosis private. In these examples, the guest’s highly sensitive location information is revealed, regardless of what actually occurred in the hotel room. That such information would be accessible to the government through a fishing expedition, where the hotel guest was a stranger to law enforcement before the officers’ random search, offends our core constitutional principles.

The court says guest records are sensitive information. As such, they cannot be swallowed up by the Third Party Doctrine. The court doesn’t create a warrant requirement, but does say officers need to have something more than an excessive amount of free time on their hands before demanding access to guest records.

We hold that the law enforcement officers conducted a search under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution when they examined the guest registry. We hold further that law enforcement officers must have at least a reasonable, articulable suspicion to search a guest registry.

Part of the underlying discussion pits society’s view of the term “reasonable” versus the government’s very liberal interpretation of this term. The government comes out on the losing end here.

Simply put, we think that most Minnesotans would be surprised and alarmed if the sensitive location information found in the guest registries at hotels, motels, or RV campsites was readily available to law enforcement without any particularized suspicion of criminal activity.

The court further points out that its declaration that access to guest records does not mean “access without any articulable suspicion” will not keep cops from busting criminals.

Nothing about our decision prevents law enforcement from partnering with hotels to help staff members recognize signs of trafficking or other crimes. And nothing about our decision prevents hotel operators from contacting law enforcement to relay suspicious observations. If such observations provide the officers with reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, they may examine the sensitive location information found in a guest registry.

The conclusion is this: the state’s Constitution prohibits suspicionless searches, even when read in conjunction with ordinances regulating the hotel/motel industry. While this industry may be subject to more law enforcement scrutiny than most, that fact does not eliminate Constitutional protections granted to residents and visitors. The evidence disappears, along with this source of law enforcement fishing expeditions. Staying somewhere other than your own home does not eliminate privacy protections.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Minnesota's Top Court Says Hotel Guest Records Are Protected By The State's Constitution”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Get a Warrant

Why does law enforcement not realize that if they have reasonable suspicion, they can show that to a judge, and obtain a warrant for the Hotel Guest information?

Because they did not have reasonable suspicion, but were fishing fishing for someone with a record that they can hassle, and maybe find evidence of a crime.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anon says:


Given the focus on credit scores and the current issues with credit card debt, there may be perfectly logical reasons why a person conducts their business in cash, related to credit-worthiness not criminal activity. Add to that if someone has done time, they may have difficulty getting credit cards.

Being poor and ex-con does not give the police a free reign to harass someone. (Ignoring the implied racial concerns in targeting poor credit ex-cons)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

"But you can't get a room without giving up this information"

I can name another industry where you are forced to provide your name, and where the recipient is similarly forced to provide all your PII to the government where it is searched through without a warrant.

The US Supreme Court would, though, do the most amazing gymnastics to keep this activity going, though.

Three words: No Fly List.

slnag2 says:

Same Happened To me except No crime !

During the Lockdown i was displaced . Personal reasons so i was staying at the Sheraton in bloomington 4/2/20 . Downstairs stress smokin plus i leave my beverages in the cold car . So i see an unmarked and in my mind im like Oh God . then i decided let me just be nice and ya know basically violate my own rights and explain my adult self in my car smoking . so i do quick blah blah about covid smokes blah and he leaves . 3 days later i get a cheaper room at the hilton . about midnight smokin by my car . ( in my white air force veteran husbands name ikr oooh suspicious ????) Anywho i see him again i say immediately i know he’s not coming to me we already discussed im here from iowa and im a smoker and not to mention the lit cigarette in my mouth . i just know he’s not coming over here . he legit parks right behind my car and blocks me in . i get out and he says whay ya doin down here ? i hold up my smoke ! he says noo i saw you down there and now you’re here . im just looking dumb ? huh ? he says who’s car is this ? umm im not comfortable with that he then says do you have a room ? well of course i do i got better places to smoke besides hotel parking lots .
ask mh room # and my ID i denied Both and locked mh doors went to my room . Another unmarked pulls up they sit opposite trying go figure a way to screw me . i come down to go to the store cux again im not scared i’m a law abiding tax paying citzen ! i see the two officers like more than an hour still there ( intimidation ) idc i jump in my car . seat belt ! grab all my legal documents because i just know they’re gonna pull me over .
they legit went in the hilton got my info and wrote a driving without a license ticket and put it on my car ! lol the gag is i’ve been licensed out of state since 08 ! i immediately call the seargent same day about noon because this happened between 2-4 am . i give him my license # his entire tone changed . apologies and promised to pull it !! he didn’t and let it go through driving privileges suspended unbeknownst to me . i request court dates and it’s all dismissed immediately reinstated .
Funny thing is my first court date was 5/29 the person was like a mediator so she couldn’t dismiss it . peculiarly 6/7 a warrant was put out for my arrest for court date i attended during lockdown . granted the fine wasn’t paid but a warrant ? especially after a pandemic weird not to mention the judge signed off on missed court not missed fine . and 7/30 a judge dismissed it in full . 8/1 im hawked down under the guise of a wellness call to one location which i since moved so that should mean im ok right ? lol they creep up and ask me am i ok ? yes im fine shoulda been the end right ? no crime ? nope they run my plates and arrest me on said warrant ! at first i thought i was paranoid these counties are like an hour away it’s no way right ? well until i got the arest paper and the officer not only Omitted the fact they searched my breast in front of men after i pleaded for privacy since i am a victim of sexual assault they denied that and totally violated me . i wasn’t sure if that was protocol until the officer not only OMITTED touching my breast in plain view of males Never mention breast one time and not only that Lies and changed breast to hand ! you can’t tell me this isn’t retaliation as if i had a choice im not keeping suspended license because you lied and not to mention i gave you a chance to fix it and you didn’t !
i’m suing Bloomington Pd The officer and the sear gent and most of all the hilton ! you gave my private into for a traffic ticket !
all because i excersized my constitutional right and didn’t awnser questions if his sole worry was did i have a room me going to it should have been enough proof ! he tried to find something and when he didn’t he grasped at straws and gave a traffic ticket ! I left minnesota at 18 and got my license out of state is reasons why he thought i didn’t have one lol oops got CAUGHT !!!! i’m so glad i found this forum ! and i’m legit going to have the retaliatory behavior investigated to the fullest extent of the law ! they claim they sent stuff umm never got it My address on my license is the home my husband owns so it’s active . not to mention woodbury gave me a seatbelt ticket so license info was entered then ! so i’m going to find out cux it’s pretty peculiar i get a warrant 7 days after i expose this for a case petty misdemeanor which was dismissed but a fine that dates 5/20/20
also i lived in a washington county shelter same county for warrant so it wasn’t hard to notify me . And if they’re involved they’re getting sued too . waiting on that case until i see how the prosecutor handles it . blatant lies . hand and breast are nowhere near close . and if it was ok to go in my breast why didn’t you mention it ?? and jus so happens a week after exposing it a warrant and case dismissed on friday hunted down and plates ran when i was not pulled over some bs wellness check and i’m arrayed that sunday !! yea im going to find out the truth !!!!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...