Latest Breaking News

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,787 posts) Mon Jun 22, 2015, 10:53 AM Jun 2015

U.S. top court throws out Los Angeles ordinance giving police access to hotel records

Source: Reuters via WTVB

Monday, June 22, 2015 10:11 a.m. EDT

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a Los Angeles city ordinance that lets police view hotel guest registries violates the privacy rights of business owners.

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that struck down the ordinance that was intended to deter crimes including prostitution.

The city appealed after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ordinance in December 2013. ... The city called the law crucial to efforts to reduce criminal activity especially in so-called parking meter motels that charge by the hour and are often used for prostitution and other crimes.

Hotel operators challenged the law, saying it violated their privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures.
....

The case is City of Los Angeles v. Patel, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1175.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Read more: http://wtvbam.com/news/articles/2015/jun/22/us-top-court-throws-out-los-angeles-ordinance-giving-police-access-to-hotel-records/

This has Fourth Amendment implications.

See SCOTUSblog for more about this.

City of Los Angeles v. Patel, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1175

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

I'm going through J. Scalia's dissent. He has the most interesting quotation, in a citation he makes of a previous case:

576 U. S. ____ (2015)
SCALIA, J., dissenting

One exception to normal warrant requirements applies to searches of closely regulated businesses. “(W)hen an entrepreneur embarks upon such a business, he has voluntarily chosen to subject himself to a full arsenal of governmental regulation,” and so a warrantless search to enforce those regulations is not unreasonable. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 313 (1978).

Let's say a case regarding pastry shop owners who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage reception heads to court. Could Scalia's quote be highlighted as support for the same-sex couple?

I should note that Marshall v. Barlow’s involved the ability of an OSHA safety and health inspector to enter the premises and look things over:

Appellee brought this action to obtain injunctive relief against a warrantless inspection of its business premises pursuant to § 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), which empowers agents of the Secretary of Labor to search the work area of any employment facility within OSHA's jurisdiction for safety hazards and violations of OSHA regulations. A three-judge District Court ruled in appellee's favor, concluding, in reliance on Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 387 U. S. 528-529, and See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541, 387 U. S. 543, that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant for the type of search involved and that the statutory authorization for warrantless inspections was unconstitutional.

Held: The inspection without a warrant or its equivalent pursuant to § 8(a) of OSHA violated the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 436 U. S. 311-325.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

U.S. top court throws out Los Angeles ordinance giving police access to hotel records (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2015 OP

No domestic searches, seizures, or spying without a warrant. rocktivity Jun 2015 #1

"In which Thomas joined" forest444 Jun 2015 #2

Subjecting ones self to gubbermint regulation does not mean d_legendary1 Jun 2015 #3

rocktivity

(44,588 posts)

1. No domestic searches, seizures, or spying without a warrant.

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:04 AM

Jun 2015

Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:55 AM - Edit history (2)

P.S. In my neck of the woods, we call them "no-tell" motels...

rocktivity

forest444

(5,902 posts)

2. "In which Thomas joined"

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:07 AM

Jun 2015

Translation: he waited patiently until Scalia ran out of wind, and then bleated: "I concur."

Well Hell, he'd concur if Scaliar-the-Hutt said there was blizzard outside.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)

3. Subjecting ones self to gubbermint regulation does not mean

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 02:19 PM

Jun 2015

the forfeiture of the rights guaranteed by our constitution. Scalia is once again wrong in the decision.

Reply to this discussion