| City of Los Angeles v. Patel | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 3, 2015 Decided June 22, 2015 | |
| Full case name | City of Los Angeles, Cal. v. Patel, et al. |
| Docket no. | 13-1175 |
| Citations | 576U.S. 409 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2443; 192L. Ed. 2d 435 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78914 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2008); affirmed, 686F.3d1085 (9th Cir. 2012); reversed on rehearingen banc, 738F.3d1058 (9th Cir. 2013);cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 400 (2014). |
| Holding | |
| Los Angeles Municipal Code § 41.49, which requires hotel operators to record and keep specific information about their guests on the premises for a 60 -day period and to make those records available to "any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection" on demand, is facially unconstitutional because it fails to provide the operators with an opportunity for pre-compliance review. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| |
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that aLos Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a 90-day period, is facially unconstitutional under theFourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.[1]
Los Angeles, in its city code,[2] required hotels to keep certain specified information about their customers, including the name and address, vehicle information, dates of the stay, room number, and how the customer paid the bill, among other information.[3] The hotel had to keep the information for 90-days, and if a police officer requested the information, the hotel had to make it available or face criminal penalties.[4] In 2003, Naranjibhai and Ramilaben Patel and other hotel operators sued the city in thefederal district court, alleging that the ordinance violated theFourth Amendment.[5]
The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court by JudgeDale S. Fischer.[6] The city argued that the hotel industry was "closely regulated," which would allow administrative inspections without asearch warrant.[7] Judge Fischer found that the industry was not closely regulated, noting that the city had provided no information to show that it was closely regulated.[8] She concluded, however, that the hotel owners had noreasonable expectation of privacy and that the ordinance was therefore constitutional.[9]
Patel appealed to theNinth Circuit court, where it was heard by a three judge panel consisting of judgesHarry Pregerson,Richard R. Clifton, andCarlos Bea.[10] The court, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the decision of the district court on the same grounds.[11]
The Patels then requested that the case be rehearden banc, before a larger panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit.[12] The en banc court found that the owners, in fact, had apossessory interest in the registry and an expectation of privacy.[13] The fact that it was hotel property and that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy placed the documents under the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.[14] The court reversed on a 7–4 vote.[15]
After the ruling, the City of Los Angeles filed a petition forcertiorari to the Supreme Court, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014.[16]
The city's brief was prepared byE. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb, and Rachel W. Apter, ofOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; byOrin Kerr; and byMike Feuer, James P. Clark, Thomas H. Peters, Gregory P. Orland of the City Attorney's Office.[17] Rosenkranz argued that the ordinance had been in effect and used for 150 years and only required showing the police a single book.[18] Further, that the use of the register serves as a deterrent to crime.[19]
Patel's brief was prepared byThomas C. Goldstein, Kevin K. Russell, and Tejinder Singh, of Goldstein & Russell; and by theSupreme Court Litigation Clinic,Harvard Law School.[20]
Amicus curiae briefs in support of Los Angeles were filed by the United States,[21] theCounty of Los Angeles[fn 1], byCalifornia,[fn 2]Drug Free America Foundation,[fn 3] California State Sheriffs' Association,[fn 4] and theManhattan Institute for Policy Research.[26] Briefs in support of Patel were filed by the Asian American Hotel Owners Association,[27] theElectronic Frontier Foundation,[28] theU.S. Chamber of Commerce,[29] theRutherford Institute,[30]Gun Owners of America[fn 5], theCato Institute,[32] Professors Adam Lamparello & Charles E. MacLean,[33]Institute for Justice,[34]Google,[35] and theElectronic Privacy Information Center.[36] A brief in support of neither party was filed by Love146.[37]
Associate JusticeSonia Sotomayor authored the 5–4 majority opinion, joined by JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer, andElena Kagan. The majority opinion held that "facial challenges under the Fourth Amendment are not categorically barred or especially disfavored" and cited cases such asSibron v. New York andChandler v. Miller.
JusticeAntonin Scalia, joined byRoberts andClarence Thomas, wrote a dissent to argue that such a warrantless search is permitted in this case because it satisfies the conditions of a regulatory scheme for a closely regulated business. JusticeSamuel Alito, joined by Thomas, filed a second dissent, listing five other scenarios where the law could be applied constitutionally.