Freedom 1 / LAPD - 0 from SCOTUS decision
Jun 22, 2015 9:40:05 GMT -6
dirkgently, Glencairn, and 6 more like this
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 9:40:05 GMT -6
YAY! Freedom wins the day, all the way! YAY!
Some quick background on this case, to understand why it matters so much and how this just crapped in the Wheaties of the LAPD with a serious dump.
Indeed.. I know the police would prefer this not exist, but we have this 4th Amendment thingy, and when the courts finally get ahold of nonsense like this? They aren't often kind about seeing the Police view of things.
I contend the city has over-reached the the point of seriously creepy invasions of privacy and deceny. By the sound of that, cops used this to just amuse themselves and pass the time on slow shifts as well.
Source
There is a contention I agree with! Entirely! That pesky 4th Amendment thing, again.
So, what has the court decided and announced this morning? Ah-Ha! They decided freedom and privacy meant more than the meddling nature of cops on pure fishing trips.
They "held" or found a few points. Here are two main ones.
(emphasis added)
You see in the first section there (I broke it up for easier reading) how the court does, almost always, circle back to the simple law. It doesn't always favor our opinion of how a thing should be, but often enough, it does. In this case, it couldn't have gone much better.
What it also important to note is the second part, and how easy it still IS for cops to get this stuff. They just cannot walk in like God himself just came into the room and demand they produce records on the spot, because the cop thought it a fine time to ask for them. This isn't Russia..yet..and that sounds shockingly like old school state security nonsense. Fortunately the court say 'Nope!'.
The other part they found on, and important to share is this:
Source
Game, set and match for the LAPD. Freedom wins with a score of 1 - 0. Some days, the system DOES work. Even if its painfully slow in getting to the right place.
Some quick background on this case, to understand why it matters so much and how this just crapped in the Wheaties of the LAPD with a serious dump.
Hypotheticals about hunting lodges and Motel 6 saved the oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday from being strangled by legal weeds.
At issue was a Los Angeles ordinance that requires hotel and motel owners to record various pieces of information about their guests — drivers license, credit card and automobile tags, for instance. The hotel owners don't dispute they have to do that; what they do dispute is the part of the law that requires proprietors to make this information available to any member of the Los Angeles Police Department upon demand.
At issue was a Los Angeles ordinance that requires hotel and motel owners to record various pieces of information about their guests — drivers license, credit card and automobile tags, for instance. The hotel owners don't dispute they have to do that; what they do dispute is the part of the law that requires proprietors to make this information available to any member of the Los Angeles Police Department upon demand.
Indeed.. I know the police would prefer this not exist, but we have this 4th Amendment thingy, and when the courts finally get ahold of nonsense like this? They aren't often kind about seeing the Police view of things.
The city contends the law is a necessary and important tool for fighting prostitution, drug trafficking and other crimes. The hotel and motel owners, some of them mom and pop operations, contend they are harassed by police, who sometimes show up for inspections of their records in the middle of the night.
I contend the city has over-reached the the point of seriously creepy invasions of privacy and deceny. By the sound of that, cops used this to just amuse themselves and pass the time on slow shifts as well.
They contend that police should at least have a subpoena in hand, allowing the proprietors to challenge the inspection in court if they think they are being harassed.
There is a contention I agree with! Entirely! That pesky 4th Amendment thing, again.
So, what has the court decided and announced this morning? Ah-Ha! They decided freedom and privacy meant more than the meddling nature of cops on pure fishing trips.
They "held" or found a few points. Here are two main ones.
(a) searches conducted outside the judicial process . . . are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few . . . exceptions.’ ” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. 332, 338. One ex-ception is for administrative searches. See Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 534. To be constitutional, the subject of an administrative search must, among other things, be afforded an opportunity to obtain precompliance re-view before a neutral decision maker. See See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541, 545.
Assuming the administrative search exception otherwise applies here, §41.49 is facially invalid because it fails to afford hotel operators any opportunity for precompliance review. To be clear, a hotel owner must only be afforded an opportunity for precompliance review; actual review need occur only when a hotel operator objects to turning over the records. This opportunity can be provided without imposing onerous burdens on law enforcement. For instance, officers in the field can issue administrative subpoenas without probable cause that a regulation is being infringed.
Assuming the administrative search exception otherwise applies here, §41.49 is facially invalid because it fails to afford hotel operators any opportunity for precompliance review. To be clear, a hotel owner must only be afforded an opportunity for precompliance review; actual review need occur only when a hotel operator objects to turning over the records. This opportunity can be provided without imposing onerous burdens on law enforcement. For instance, officers in the field can issue administrative subpoenas without probable cause that a regulation is being infringed.
You see in the first section there (I broke it up for easier reading) how the court does, almost always, circle back to the simple law. It doesn't always favor our opinion of how a thing should be, but often enough, it does. In this case, it couldn't have gone much better.
What it also important to note is the second part, and how easy it still IS for cops to get this stuff. They just cannot walk in like God himself just came into the room and demand they produce records on the spot, because the cop thought it a fine time to ask for them. This isn't Russia..yet..and that sounds shockingly like old school state security nonsense. Fortunately the court say 'Nope!'.
The other part they found on, and important to share is this:
Petitioner’s argument that the ordinance is facially valid under the more relaxed standard for closely regulated industries is rejected. See Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 313. This Court has only recognized four such industries, and nothing inherent in the operation of hotels poses a comparable clear and significant risk to the public welfare.
Additionally, because the majority of regulations applicable to hotels apply to many businesses, to classify hotels as closely regulated would permit what has always been a narrow exception to swallow the rule. But even if hotels were closely regulated, §41.49 would still contravene the Fourth Amendment as it fails to satisfy the additional criteria that must be met for searches of closely regulated industries to be reasonable. See New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 702–703. Pp. 13–17.
Additionally, because the majority of regulations applicable to hotels apply to many businesses, to classify hotels as closely regulated would permit what has always been a narrow exception to swallow the rule. But even if hotels were closely regulated, §41.49 would still contravene the Fourth Amendment as it fails to satisfy the additional criteria that must be met for searches of closely regulated industries to be reasonable. See New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 702–703. Pp. 13–17.
Game, set and match for the LAPD. Freedom wins with a score of 1 - 0. Some days, the system DOES work. Even if its painfully slow in getting to the right place.