In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court struck down an LA municipal ordinance requiring hotel owners to keep a registry of guests and produce it to police on demand.
Striking a blow for freedom? Well, not really. It seems that the majority has held this unconstitutional because the motel owners must be permitted to have some sort of judicial or administrative way to challenge a police request to inspect.
But here’s the kicker: The warrants can be obtained ex parte, the police can seize the registry while the warrant is obtained, and the warrant can be obtained without any type of suspicion that the particular hotel owner has done anything wrong.
Am I missing something or is this just form over substance? What real protection does this offer to a hotel owner or invigorate the Fourth Amendment in this context?
Warrants are usually obtained ex parte. Ensuring a warrant is based on sufficient grounds is the issuing magistrate’s job. Anyway, I think you are analogizing hotel owners to hotel patrons, which they are not. I presume the Court would rule quite differently in a case where a guest challenged the ordinance. Many businesses are subject to spot checks of a similar sort without any kind of particularized suspicion. For example, cities may randomly inspect restaurant kitchens.
Agreed, so I’m not sure of the practical effect of this ruling. Why require the police to go through the dog and pony show of getting a warrant to search the hotel register when the warrant will be issued as a matter of right?