SCOTUS Will Review City Law Authorizing Warrantless Police Inspection of Hotel Guest Registries

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear arguments later this term in Los Angeles v. Patel, a case asking whether a city law which says that hotel guest registries "shall be made available to any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection" without consent or warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
According to Los Angeles officials, restricting this power would jeopardize the ability of the police to "investigate crimes such as prostitution and gambling, capture dangerous fugitives and even authorize federal law enforcement to examine these registers, an authorization which can be vital in the immediate aftermath of a homeland terrorist attack." The city is urging the Supreme Court to overturn a 2013 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled against the L.A. statute, holding that hotels have an expectation of privacy in their guest registries under the Fourth Amendment.
Oral argument in Los Angeles v. Patel will be scheduled at a later date.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not crimes.
Get a damn warrant.
Well why didn't you say so? Peek away.
restricting this power would jeopardize the ability of the police to . . .
tuff shit
But the 4th Amendment is not a suicide pact. The Telescreens are on order.
Yet another example of how WA is better. These type of random registry checks are already ruled un(state)constitutional. Note, perfectly constitutional to check registry if articulable reasons support it, just no random checks, as allowed here.
Yeah, things are so much better in your neighborhood, where guys that get fired from Seattle get a promotion to the County's Sheriff's office:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/new.....iff/ng4xz/
To be fair, the public sector is little different than the private sector in that regard. It shouldn't be, but it is.
Yeah, yeah - I'm sure that you always get a warrant to check a hotel log and that none of your compadres ever decide to just go take a peak.
And when they do they make sure to inform the clerk of his rights - no, wait, that's something he'll have to figure out on his own.
And in those situations where the clerk refuses to hand over the registry without a warrant I'm sure you guys just politely head back to the magistrate for one and don't threaten him with further police interference in his business of direct legal action (obstructing justice much?)
Remember, this claims to be the same Dunphy who was boasting about coercing pharmacists into violating federal privacy law by having them cough up prescription records.
Wow, dunphy, that perfume you're wearing sure smells good!
What does it remind me of?
Oh, yes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBKVg4pbL3E
Hmm, I thought you were going to link to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0_uhUhqrbk
So the Supes plan to overturn the 9th Circuit's decision upholding the 4A.
OT- has anyone ever noticed the only difference between circus and circuits is IT? hahahahahaha
If the government contends our phone records and meta data are available to the NSA without violating the 4th amendment, how is this metadata special or different? I suspect this case will lose.