Search Law Deemed Facially Unconstitutional

City of Los Angeles, California v. Patel et al

The U.S. Supreme Court held that L.A. hotel owners have a right to refuse to show their registries to the police when the police do not have a subpoena. L.A. Municipal Code §41.49 was determined to be facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Because it falls within the administrative search exception to the Fourth Amendment, officers can still issues subpoenas for the hotel registries without needing probable cause.

The court emphasized that facial challenges are not procedurally barred categorically or “especially disfavored” even if they are rare. This allows for a challenge of the enforcement of this law, or other “patently unconstitutional” laws without having to wait for a set of facts to present itself. Or, one can challenge this law based on its unconstitutionality before the law is brought to bear against a party. When a facial challenge to a law is brought, “the proper focus is on searches that the law actually authorizes and not those that could proceed irrespective of whether they are authorized by the statute…” The focus of the Court is on what the law authorizes, and not what could happen without the law, or what happened in a specific case.

The Supreme Court’s decision also indicated that hotels are not a “closely regulated” industry, which would apply a more relaxed Fourth Amendment standard. The Court indicated that such a generally applicable law cannot make such a broad spectrum of business a “closely regulated” industry.

Because these searches were done without subpoenas they were “conducted outside the judicial process” and “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few… exceptions.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 338. One of those exceptions is for administrative searches, but even under that exception the subject is guaranteed an opportunity to obtain precompliance review.

Section 41.49 is constitutionally deficient under the “certainty and regularity” prong of the closely regulated industries test because doesn’t constrain police officer’s discretion regarding which hotels to search and under what circumstances. No standard is given in 41.49 to control the acts of the police officers under this exception.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/City_of_Los_Angeles_v_Patel_No_131175_US_June_22_2015_Court_Opini