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

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

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.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:19pm

    Scalia, the "originalist", keeps making up the law as he goes along.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      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!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          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!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    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...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 22 Jun 2015 @ 8:44pm

    Motel owners should be REQUIRED to challenge warrant-less searches of guest registries.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.