Los Angeles v. Patel (13-1175)

argument 13-1175

Los Angeles v. Patel

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core dispute in Los Angeles v. Patel about hotel registry inspections?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case thirteen eleven seventy five, the city of Los Angeles versus Patel.

0:07

Mr.

Rosencrantz 0:07

Rosencranz. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. This case is about whether to deprive scores of cities of one of the most effective tools that they have developed to deter human trafficking, prostitution, and drug crimes that have seized the the the the ground in America's hotels and motels. The ordinance in question is the least intrusive uh uh inspection scheme that this court has ever encountered. It is limited to showing the police a single book containing only information that the hotels uh transcribed specifically for the city uh and that they've been turning over to the police by operation of law for a hundred and fifty

Elena Kagan 1:00

first two questions. Is the information that they've been keeping for one hundred and fifty years the same? Because looking at the uh requirements the early information was basically somebody's name And I'm not even sure their dress. Um There but today's information has or today's registry and requirements have information that federal law doesn't permit to be disclosed. Like driver's license? um uh credit card information. meaning federal law says you can't disclose that information. So isn't there a difference? It's not the same tradition over a hundred and fifty years.

Rosencrantz 1:42

You are right, Your Honor, that the amount of information has increased. The privacy interests, however, have been pretty much the same. It was name and address uh and the rate that they were charged and so forth. And that is the the the the the information that the that uh uh the hotels have argued is the most private

Elena Kagan 2:07

tool for trafficking, prostitution, child molestation. None of that sounds like it's Uh the purpose of the search is administrative.

Rosencrantz 2:17

Well, it is administrative, Your Honor. And to understand why it's administrative, you have to focus first on the target. The target here is not people who are accused of crimes. The target is the motels and the hotels who are required to keep records, to record information. And why are they required to record the information? For the deterrent purpose, and the deterrent purpose more specifically is that criminals do Do not like to register. They do not like to record their information No,

Unknown 2:45

m Mr. Rosquist, are you saying then? Right. The police can do this. can request these records on demand and they don't have to have Any reason at all, no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, nothing. Because the purpose is to deter people from staying in hotels who might do bad things. So they're not nothing like a reasonable a suspicion requirement.

Rosencrantz 3:15

That's correct, Your Honor. It's the same rationale that this court adopted in Berger, that frequent unannounced spot inspections are necessary in order to achieve that deterrent purpose. That if the hotels do not record all the names, and more specifically, they record most names but not the names of the of the guests that they know are criminals, there's no way to know. unless you have this frequent unannounced inspection that someone is missing. So there's a real necessity here, as there was in Berger and in Biswell.

Elena Kagan 3:50

Tell me how many prosecutions there have been. Pi and I use the word both criminally or civil. for the failure to register people.

Rosencrantz 4:00

Well there have been numerous prosecutions. I can't tell you how many the complaints in this case, which are in the beginning of the joint appendix, uh, refer to the plaintiffs having been prosecuted multiple times or fined for failure for failing to keep the records. And I just I do want to underscore this point about necessity. The problem is not that the registers are empty. The problem is that the hotels decline to record the names of those who they know are criminals, or the motels do.

Elena Kagan 4:34

But that has nothing to do with um the free right to search. those people who are refusing to do it are going to refuse to do it. A record keeping requirement has no um has no constitutional challenge. What does is the unfettered access to that record.

Rosencrantz 4:55

Agreed, Your Honor.