City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a 90-day period, is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.City of Los Angeles v. Patel: SCOTUSblog, SCOTUSblog.com, n.d. (last viewed July 13, 2015); , slip op. (2015) (hereinafter cited as Patel).

Background Los Angeles, in its city code,Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 41.49 (hereinafter cited as LAMC). 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.Patel, at *5-6; City of Los Angeles v. Patel article, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law (last visited June 24, 2015) (hereinafter cited as Oyez Project). 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.LAMC § 41.49(3)(a). In 2003, Naranjibhai and Ramilaben Patel and other hotel operators sued the city in the federal district court, alleging that the ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment.Patel, at *7; Oyez Project.

Lower courts U.S. District Court The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court by Judge Dale S. Fischer.Patel v. City of Los Angeles, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78914 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 5, 2008). The city argued that the hotel industry was "closely regulated," which would allow administrative inspections without a search warrant.2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78914, at *5; Oyez Project. 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.2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78914, at *6. She concluded, however, that the hotel owners had no reasonable expectation of privacy and that the ordinance was therefore constitutional.2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78914, at *7-8; Oyez Project.

Circuit court of appeals Patel appealed to the Ninth Circuit court, where it was heard by a three judge panel consisting of judges Harry Pregerson, Richard R. Clifton, and Carlos Bea. The court, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the decision of the district court on the same grounds.686 F.3d at 1090; Oyez Project.

En banc rehearing The Patels then requested that the case be reheard en banc, before a larger panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit. The en banc court found that the owners, in fact, had a possessory interest in the registry and an expectation of privacy.738 F.3d at 1061. 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.738 F.3d at 1062; Oyez Project. The court reversed on a 7–4 vote.738 F.3d at 1059.

After the ruling, the City of Los Angeles filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014.City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 400 (2014).

Supreme Court

Arguments

Brief and arguments of Los Angeles The city's brief was prepared by E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb, and Rachel W. Apter, of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; by Orin Kerr; and by Mike Feuer, James P. Clark, Thomas H. Peters, Gregory P. Orland of the City Attorney's Office.Pet'r Br. at *7, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4409 (2015). Rosenkranz argued that the ordinance had been in effect and used for 150 years and only required showing the police a single book.City of Los Angeles v. Patel argument, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law (last visited June 27, 2015) (hereinafter cited as Argument). Further, that the use of the register serves as a deterrent to crime.Argument.

Brief and arguments of Patel Patel's brief was prepared by Thomas C. Goldstein, Kevin K. Russell, and Tejinder Singh, of Goldstein & Russell; and by the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Harvard Law School.Resp't Br. at *7, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 213 (2015).

Amicus briefs Amicus curiae briefs in support of Los Angeles were filed by the United States,Br. of United States, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4584 (2015). the County of Los Angeles, by California, Drug Free America Foundation, California State Sheriffs' Association, and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.Br. of Manhattan Inst. for Pol'y Research, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4589 (2015). Briefs in support of Patel were filed by the Asian American Hotel Owners Association,Br. of Asian Am. Hotel Owners Ass'n, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2005 (2015). the Electronic Frontier Foundation,Br. of Elec. Frontier Found., City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 486 (2015). the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,Br. of U.S. Chamber of Commerce, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1997 (2015). the Rutherford Institute,Br. of the Rutherford Inst., City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 349 (2015). Gun Owners of America, the Cato Institute,Br. of Cato Inst., City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 488 (2015). Professors Adam Lamparello & Charles E. MacLean,Br. of Lamparello, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 494 (2015). Institute for Justice,Br. of Inst. for Justice, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 345 (2015). Google,Br. of Google, Inc., City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 485 (2015). and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.Br. of Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 492 (2015). A brief in support of neither party was filed by Love146.Br. of Love146, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4632 (2015).

Opinion of the Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 5–4 majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. The majority opinion held that "facial challenges under the Fourth Amendment are not categorically barred or especially disfavored" and cited cases such as Sibron v. New York and Chandler v. Miller.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Roberts and Clarence 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. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Thomas, filed a second dissent, listing five other scenarios where the law could be applied constitutionally.

See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576

Notes

References

External links