To d. Turner Human Trafficking prostitution and drug crimes that sees the ground in hotels and motelss. The regions the question is the least intrusive inspection schemes that this court has ever encountered, limited to showing the least a single book containing only information that the hotels are transcribing specifically for the city and that they have been turning over to the police. Two questions. The information they have been keeping for 150 years the same . Looking at the requirements the yearly information was somebodys name. I am not sure they are addressed. Todays information for todays requirement have information federal law doesnt permit to be disclosed like drivers license, credit card information. Federal law says you cant disclose that information. Isnt there at different . Isnt the same tradition for 150 years. The amount of information has increased. Privacy interests have been the same. It was name and address, rates that were charged and so forth. The information that the hotels have argued. The most effective tools for trafficking prostitution, child molestation, none of that sounds right. The purpose of the search is administrative. To understand you have to focus first on a target, the target he is not people accused of crimes but motels and hotels required to keep records to record information. Why are they required to record information . For the deterrent purpose which more specifically is criminals and do not like to register or record are you saying to request these records on demand, they dont have to have any reason at all or reasonable suspicion to report nothing because the progress is to deter them from staying in hotels who do lending nothing like reasonable suspicion requirement. That is correct. This the rationale the court adopted that a free unannounced inspections are necessary in order to achieve the deterrent purpose. Of the hotels did not record all the names and more specifically the record most names but not the names of the guests they know are criminals there is no way to know without an unannounced inspections that someone is missing so there is a real necessity as there was in burger. Tell me how many prosecutions they fear . I use the word criminal or civil for failure to register people. There have been numerous prosecutions. The complaints in this case which are in a joint appendix, referred to the plaintiffs having been prosecuted multiple times or find for failing to keep the records. I want to underscore this point about necessity. The problem is not that the registers are empty but that hotels declined to report the names of those they know are criminals or the motels do. That has nothing to do with the free right to search. Those people are going to refuse to do it, recordkeeping requirement has no constitutional challenge. What does is the unfettered access to that record. Let me break it down. Those who dont want to do it wont do it anyway. The people who dont want to do it go somewhere else or dont commit their crimes but if they are forced to do it which is to say they say unless they register, they will not commit those crimes in the motels and the only way to make sure that the motels are enforcing that obligation is to descend on them without notice as Justice Ginsburg was saying and frequently so you never know when the police will come, to make sure they are in deep reporting the information and why is the real time information key, because say the police show up and have not register and notice room number 2 is unoccupied according to register but they see someone in room number 2. They know from realtime observation theres a violation here. If they get the register a month later they have nothing to compare it. The can walk up and down the halls and see that no one is in a certain room . You have room number 2 as if it is right there. Remember 1204. Motels for example are out in the open. What about my question about room 1204 . Wandering over to the hotel. May be allowed to Wander Around a hotel. They probably will not see much if they are wandering back and forth looking at particular rooms. Suppose in motels and they see what rooms have cars in front of them and as to room 1204 they can see usually behind the desk what hes are missing, what rooms appear to be occupied. That is correct. The oldtime observation is so key because you cant do that a month later and that is why we have the same why . What you are saying is it is easier to prosecute but it doesnt mean you cant develop resources to find this out, to do surveillance which is what police do and you watch people going in for two hours and leaving and you keep record of it. You can stop those people who are leaving to pass them. There is a lot of Law Enforcement techniques that could be used to combat this situation you are talking about. Not as effectively. Since when has the Fourth Amendment completely been abandoned to the proof that the police can get at a moment. That is not the test but it refers to the fact that it is not as effected ended doesnt work. Let me give you an example. If all the police are doing is looking for who is in what room and what keys are missing they dont actually know what to look for until after the fact. They may be looking for the wrong thing and they cant do it, look at these because they are not available and d. C. Tuesday. It is having the information right in front of them and comparing it to things why isnt this just like barlows . Is not necessary on the following rationale. Most people will consent so that the police go to the hotel and say we would like to see a registry. Most people are going to consent. Somebody says no end aires real basis for believing the evidence is altered or destroyed. Pending judicial review or get an administrative was in and conduct surprise examination if you want to so we talked about all those things why that suggested these warrantless searches were not necessary what makes this different . The distinction between barlows on the one hand and burger and the other hand. That is the moveability of information that is transient of the information you use to verify. If there is an unsafe condition there is an unsafe condition and it is hard to see that this court said it also distinguish, if it is the sort of condition that doesnt change over time you can get a warrant. What is going to change it . The registry is the registry. It is an unusual case you have the feeling that the hotel is the implicit you can make sure to freeze the registry but that will be an unusual case and mostly the registry will be there. Mostly people are going to consent to the extent that you get a warrant. It will slip with changes the information on the basis of which you draw that comparison. If you compare the register, you get register a month later it is an hour later. You mean get a warrant within an hour . Warrants within an hour or not that easy to get. What is probable cause for the warrant . If you havent seen the register what is probable cause . To sit outside the hotel for days, you dont have probable cause because there are people in the room for a short time who havent registered. That is exactly right. Warrants offer probable cause. That is why burger ended is well said you dont need to get a warrant when you do an administrative inspection. A member of the court sits down, does he or she have to use that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in our society and culture or do we just forget that phrase in a way as we know it is circular. It depends on which Fourth Amendment one uses. The court looks at the statute and asks if this is closely regulated, was it necessary, is it legitimate lawenforcement purpose . We talk about that in the telephone this case. I am not sure. That is the phrase that is necessary and required for us to address an opinion like this. If the court adopts the berger rubric, what the court was saying was because this is so heavily regulated in the context of this case, because everyone knows these registers have been reviewed by the police for 15 years no one goes into the Hotel Business and aware that their registers what expectation of privacy are we talking about . They have taken the position that this is not about expectation of privacy of the guest. That is what i thought. You cant see in my register. Even though i entered a business that for 115 years has revealed these registereds and revealed the registers to the guest. Suppose there is a statute that says the taxing authority, the irs or equivalent on the state level, the taxing authority can going to businesses at any time and check payroll records and the reason is they need to conduct surprise warrantless searches because there is a serious problem with businesses giving false payroll records. Is that constitutional . I would thing not at least not without more information. There is in this long history of the government reviewing payroll records and secondly, at least it is a closer question secondly payroll records are not the sorts of things for which you need spot inspections. The government says if you wait until they submit everything they will falsified a lot of records and we need to see what is happening on the ground in real time. A record is false or not. You dont need realtime figure you dont want to give them time to falsify things until the end of the year. We could have a thousand examples like this. My answer is still the same. It doesnt have the same real time need. Why not . Checking to see if people are actually registered. You dont know that until you see a person working. The number of people, let me see the Record Keeping today. That is a real time need to. The ultimate record is false or not. You dont have real time ability to verify that. You falsified the registrys the way these people do. My problem with the closely regulated is i dont see one regulation that is not applicable to virtually every public accommodation entity whether it is the Telephone Company or case school or hospital. Virtually all of these requirements that you list are part of normal state regulation of entities that serve people. Is it your position that once we say this is closely regulated everything is . No, your honor. To my rebuttal time if i may answer quickly, no, first of all, the close deregulated exception is way more and closely regulated. There are three and other elements to it, to demonstrate the necessity and it is not a criminal justice purpose and need to demonstrate there is adequate substitute for a warrant but no further questions, i would like to reserve for the bubble. May it please the court. If the court resolve this case for looking at other administrative inspections schemes such as the one in barlows. The ninth circuit recognize the case did not involve entry into the nonpublic working places, to residential property, in to the public lobby of the motel. For brief inspection of the registry of the motel. It would normally say to get into a house to rummage through desks. The registry can be produced for inspection. It gets to the registry you are saying if a Police Official stand outside the house, what it wants from inside brings it out, not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because that tells the person, it would be search and reasonableness would depend on the facts. We are dealing with businesses with expectations of privacy. In nonpublic areas of the businesses which we were concerned with. And to govern those situations where the court sometimes said this is required and that it is not. A substantial number, and the applications of the statute which is constitutional. I think if there were and the giants circumstances that justified the registry, most importantly then you dont need the statutes. The statute helps. In what circumstances . Yes it doesnt work. It works and the sense that the statute provides encouragement for potentially recalcitrant hotel owner to reproduce it because it is an offense for them not to but more importantly for the court at the valuation of the facial challenge issue is there is no record in this case what privacy expectations exist with respect to a hotel wedges trees. Largely a matter of conjecture, speculation and i dont see all that is required for a person to say this is my Business Record and why do they have to prove more . What are they supposed to prove . We never required that. They should show a certain degree of confidentiality associated with it. Federal law requires you not disclose credit card information registries are required for drivers license information for people who paid by cash and credit card information of people who are otherwise registering. The registry doesnt need credit card information unless they check in at a kiosk. An important debt is what they did is invalidate the statute, regardless of any facts it cant be enforced against any one. I assume if the problem is license plates and credit card information, it is not up to the hotel to complain about that invasion of privacy. It is up to the guests end this case does not involve guests. Just a hotel that is objecting. And there is a range of situations in which different information is maintained in different ways but the change is problematic. If you reach the merits what the ninth circuit itself did is this case doesnt trigger the very strong safeguards that are triggered when there is an invasion of and not public space of a business. A treat it like an administrative subpoena case which has Fourth Amendment requirements associated with it but those requirements are that the subpoena be relevant, that it be reasonable in scope and specific. The ninth circuit conceded that all three of those requirements satisfied. Section 4149 by itself establishes the relevance of the information for the administrative purpose of the statutes. It is specific and narrow in scope. Anybody who goes into the Hotel Industry knows that that is an inspection that they are subjected to. July have the right thing . The distinction which the ninth circuit has is that involved entry into the nonpublic areas of the business which exposes a much wider range of information to the inspection of the authorities. Marshall covered every industry in interstate commerce and allowed ocean inspections without any intimidation in in that circumstance because they tended to stand at you are saying it makes a difference constitutionally whether you keep the registries in the front desk for the back office . The ninth circuit analyzed it precisely that way. You can walk into the lobby of a hotel. The court said so in the loans fear case, you are not invading and expectation of privacy. You ask the hotels to show you the register which can be done as simply as moving the computer screen so the officer can see it. That is the most minimal intrusion that exists. If i were running a hotel i would have different uniform detectives in the back room which is intrusive. Ninth circuit treated it as a lesser degree of intrusion and inspection of all private areas of business. Once you apply the subpoena line of cases you realize the statute itself serves the purposes that that line of cases is designed to serve. The only claim the judicial review would be difficult to accomplish in this case because the purpose of this scheme, through the criminal law. The place where they are conducting Budget Motels with strong incentive to take cash, and allow criminal activity to flourish so the regulatory purpose of 4149 is to target not the criminals but the place where they can conduct their activity and doing it in a classic of administrative way you can rent a room not rent it to people for cash for shortterm is, no reservations when they dont have an identification to show. They are. What you think is relevant here. It is not a hotel, but a Hunting Lodge and there are Record Keeping environments how much people shoot and what they shoot and so forth and so on. The fish and Wildlife Service some state equivalent of that, we do not want to rely on people reporting to us at periodic points. And surprise inspections all the time. Would that be all right . In part because it is a public Hunting Lodge. It is private. Members of the court in the interest of the interest being served here which is a genuine problem reflected in the fact that there are 100 statues like this across the country. Is that how you distinguish it . Fish and wildlife people think it is awfully important to make sure all of these rules are complied with. This course in classic Fourth Amendment analysis serve against the nature of the intrusion, and i dont know enough about Hunting Lodges you have in mind to gauge the nature of the intrusion but i will say if this. Joy at requirement to expose books and records you are required to debug the regulatory matter that no one disputes requirement to keep, to Law Enforcement officers in a public area of your facility. That is this case. There is no dispute that you can require the hotel to keep the record. That is correct. With a big dispute with regard to private Hunting Lodges whether you could require the and to keep the record. There may be Second Amendment concerns that would weigh in the balance. The court can resolve this case in an extremely narrow fashion. Is even more dangerous, look how many businesses, Retail Businesses transact recordkeeping in public areas, talk about any shop in the country go to the back, virtually any of the man transact their business, keep their credit card information, put it right on a computer in front of them. In treating on someones private in formation in a public place eliminates the Fourth Amendment. Three questions. The potentiality of government interest in the nature of the intrusion on privacy and necessity. There is a strong lead in the case of these hotels for comment narcotics activity to flourish because criminals to not want to identify themselves when they check in to have regular and announced inspections to give the hotels incentive to comply with the registration law. Mr. Golds seen goldstein please we ask the city does not need to go to the judge in advance to get a warrant but instead merely needs to issue a one page subpoena. We can object to that subpoena but it will be enforced unless the city is in a legitimate seen. Is it your position that there are no instances in which the inspection the implementing and constitution . It is because you would use it and you waive the right to privacy and doesnt involve the enforcement of the statute. The requirement that there be a regular scheme it appears in the administrative rule itself, that doesnt exist here. Theres no limit to how often they concerned with the reason they can search. Then you put a court in to the process for judicial review being available and the reason is the Fourth Amendment protects our sense of tranquillity. Individuals and other context, businesses and other contexts need to know officers are not going to at their whim conduct the searches. A city or state wanted to establish an administrative inspection regime along the line of barlows. What would it have to include in your judgment . Could the warrant be issued by an administrative judge as opposed to superior court judge . Would it require probable cause . No. Could be done without prior notice . Could you have different standards for different types of hotels . For all hotels but much more frequent inspections for hotels that rent by the hour hotels that have a large number of guests who pay in cash and so forth . All those things could be done . Is not clear to me what that would add to the ordnance. Justice kennedy asked how barlow plays out in this context. He is absolutely right that the court said if you are not physically inspecting the premises you dont have to ahead of time get the warrant and it is not a probable cause for the board. All the court is required in this line of cases, it if the government shows the administrative scheme but the second part is what is missing and the key kays is mentioned in passing that it hasnt gotten enough attention in the case, donovan versus loan next year. It is a unanimous opinion that considers the circumstance similar to this. That is and a fair labor standards act the government can do what it does here and demand employment records and the reason the court said that supports the Fourth Amendment is theres a balance and the government has to issue a subpoena to which the employer can object and that accomplishes two things. The first is without burdening the government interjects the possibility of judicial review and the enforcement officer to the answer of my question there is no notion of probable cause or reasonable, as, the hotel and reasons buyer to keep these records, and the police dont have to have any reason what would be shown . The Court Consistent line of precedent there are six cases the dealt with the subpoena rule. The concern when you have a scheme like this the doesnt tell the officer how often wore when to surge, the officer will do two things forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, one is they will do it in a harassing way and the second is crime control. Is a real concern here. The city is saying it wants to look at the record, the prostitute involved in renting rooms so that is why, what you do is let the police issue the subpoena. They dont go to the judge ahead of time but the prospect of an objection that you can go to would judge is what protects the tranquillity of the Business Owner. What is the purpose . You agree that it is constitutional to require the register. Absolutely. Why is the state interested . They cant go look at it with little notice . What is the difference a . The only interest is Law Enforcement a point in our favor but just to recognize what mr. Rosenkranz is describing as the scenario is entirely inaccurate so if i could play out the hypothetical, an officer shows up at a motel and sees the light on we give the best case and what he wants to do is determine there is a registration card for room 2, he doesnt know anything inappropriate is going on but it doesnt matter. What the officer does is make a record that someone in room 2, it comes back two days later answer is the subpoena. Theres no reason there is advance notice to the motel owner, if he has been to a concern he can sequester records, at if there is an objection which is extremely rare, there is no reason. Is concerned about is observation. He can sell side and looked outside the room. The issue in the case is do you have to go in and have no opportunity for a judge to be involved before you search the record. Leaving the light on doesnt improve anything unless you know that the hotel has not registered the person in the room. Our objection is not to them being able to require the register or inspect the register. Neither of those is the issue. The question is conveyed to that without giving us an opportunity to say to a judge what is going on in here is a Law Enforcement for harassment. They had come in five times during the day and they issued the subpoena, they give me at subpoena and face a we want the records and if there is an objection the officer made observation about will 2 and they can go ahead, no reason the subpoena objection cant be heard by a judge later run. He has observed at the a note about what is going on in the hotel but i will say they could fill in while he is getting his subpoena. This subpoena is not running off anywhere. It is simply hand at the desk. This is an administrative one gauge piece of paper. All you are asking for in this litigation is the one who wants to inspect it pulls out a piece of paper and hands it to him. There are two parts. The reason this works and is it requires the bare minimum except in limited burger context is when you hand the subpoena the person who received the subpoena says this is an unusual case, and will go to the trouble of objecting. I can tell a judge and prove to let judge that this is Law Enforcement. You could say the same thing without the subpoena. Right to say this to a judge. The policeman is getting a subpoena to fill in the name of the person that otherwise is a blank slate. Wont get a subpoena. Subpoenas the other person can demand additional a judicial review. The Police Officer has to go somewhere to get judicial review with whoever the hotel owner says. The hotel owner may have to file emotion that is not important to your hypothetical. Here is the problem with that argument. We are trying to figure that out. Now what happens . How is it doesnt take any amount of time the Court Consistently required, and the administrative judge. Doesnt the hotel clerk, he fills in. By Justice Elena kagan you can sequester the records and that is the question is searching the records. Theres a set of cards. This is a real concern. Is a concern made by the citys lawyers and discord when at trial they did not refuse any evidence and it would be equally applicable in every kind of prior record. The same is true of the could to take these records and keep them in the police car trunk . You can do that. There is authority . It is similar to what this court has set in the Fourth Amendment context. When Police Showed up at someones house concerned about the destruction of evidence what they do much more intrusive than what you are objecting to. I dont think the government can have it both ways. These are private records and they want to do something unusual that the Fourth Amendment forbids. They want to have a scheme that doesnt say when they will search, how often they will search for the purpose mabels surge. Their record is required by law to be kept and you were not objecting to that at all. Absolutely right. The other side makes a good point and that is these are Business Records that receive reduced Fourth Amendment protection. We understand that so did the unanimous court, that is the reason we dont have probable cause requirement, why we require the minimum amount of judicial process which is the prospect that an owner has a good objection they can go to a judge. That is why we dont have full protections. Can be sequestered by the Police Officer before the chief justice, you have to have some outside approval, you cant have these records and they say give me the book and take them away. Hold them aside. This is a real problem which theres no evidence of but once to hold them aside, you can be just sequestered. That is the seizure. Why is that looking at the information . In the identical circumstances arises in the Fourth Amendment context. When concerned about the destruction of evidence the board can acquire a warrant. Without searching it. That has probable cause. It has be relevant level in the context. In response to earlier questions, the city can have the regime in which an Administrative Law judge issues a warrant not a subpoena for periodic inspection. This is the warrant. That is not a challenge to what later. What this court has said, is the distinction that when you get that judicial review, we are very happy with that. The difference between your hypothetical, and Law Enforcement is orderly operation of administrative scheme whereas what the city wants is to go in at any time as often as you want for any purpose. It may indicate this is not a basis for a facial attack. These issues the court in all of the line of cases, dealt with things on a categorical basis on a case by case basis. This is a scheme where they are dont need any justification to come in. It is still limited, we can do it at any time. Theres a minimum of a subpoena process. The stronger answer would be looking at a lack of procedural protection and jurisdictional challenge. Any time the challenge is to the lack of process it is looked at or implied or whatever but doesnt need to be as applied. Let me add another point that is underappreciate it. Not only does our complaint asserts a challenge but it was a trial on the challenge and a record on the challenge the record in this case we pursued the challenge only after or before the second trial. A stipulated they have facial defenses of the statutes. That is why we have this audion a facial challenge. Evidence has been collected. Nothing is gained by a second trial. You constantly said one of the objections the hotel owner could make it is you want these records for enforcement of criminal law. You say that is bad but the whole purpose of this is to enable criminal law to be in force. There are two points being made. You are quite right. They have an administrative scheme. The debt that is to deter criminal lie on tuesday a Police Officer comes in and says i think theres a prostitute in room 3. I am going to invoke this 4149 and see if that persons name matches up with a prostitute. Criminal Law Enforcement requires probable cause but an underlying administrative scheme doesnt mean they can investigate crimes through using this. The court has said time and time again is an administrative decision but it is important to involve the courts because there is this concern at this case presented more starkly than any other. A miss use the administrative process. There is an exception to that principle where the whole purpose of this scheme is to enable detection of criminal activity and then the objection would be the whole scheme is bad. You cannot require them to keep books because the whole purpose is to detect criminal activity. That is not what you are arguing. If the books to detect criminal activity but if they request the book to detect criminal activity it is bad. Doesnt make any sense. That is not the argument. The argument is their defense of the statute is not that the records are used to detect crime. They are used to deter crime. They dont look to define criminals, they look at the records to make sure we are keeping records. My point is one day a Police Officer, and it can happen regularly. An officer will come in and say i dont care whether you filled out the form. There might be a prostitute in room iii. An equally important purpose behind this is to prevent harassment. I dont like this hotel owner. I want to drive this hotel out of business. I am going to be showing up in his lobby every day but that is part of what is going on here. The principal thing they point to is look at what is missing in this ordinance. Every time the other side will say we identified specifically the records but the question is not what the records are but the loss of the sense of tranquillity provided by the Fourth Amendment the we dont know how frequently and for what purpose and what reason at all that Police Officers just come in over and over again. Have we use that phrase before . Tranquillity . I dont think that were you talk about privacy but i am not sure the Fourth Amendment should be expanded to protect its sense of tranquillity. Tranquil hotel owners i associate with owning a hotel. It is a sense of certainty that the Fourth Amendment provides that what you do know is there are limits when a police come in and say show us your papers. In hotels they have notices posted all over about where the first emergency exit is and all that. Police come in and make sure the hotel has those posted . Yes. Because they are in public spaces. The back of a hotel room, is that private place . In the back of the restaurant or the back of the kitchen. Every hotel room has one of those. This is a very important thing to make sure people dont die and make sure you got them. Let me looking room 12. A great example to us. And what has to happen is there has to be a subpoena ahead of time. The lowest standard the court has ever applied was in do we and what do we said is if you dont involve a court you have to have a set of rules about when the search is applied or are conducted and how often. I dont understand your answer about harassment. Maybe this is in the record or this is as supplied but the police even if this ordinance were invalidated the Police Showed up whenever they want, and ask for the owner at the desk to volunteer the registers so they could be in the lobby as much as they want. Exactly how does this aid in harassment of hotels . They are requiring private records. In cases like barlows where the police could show up and inspect the premises they could still show up and harassed but what the courts that is if you invade privacy everyone agrees this is the Fourth Amendment. Is a public space. I dont know it is deposited to this for some relevance. They walked in with two scenarios, one with with the ordnance and one without. They walked in and let us look at the register and the owner says no, i dont want to. That is the first scenario. The second is they come in and say let us see the register, and what . It is harassment because they sit there for a while and the guests coming in c police in the lobby . The fact that a day after day, we have to give some private information. It could put us out of business. Lets imagine the following scenario. We are put in this position because they have this hypothetical about when it could be valid. Officers see someone coming to the motel and the time they see someone coming to the motel they say let us see the records. It can interfere if you imagine if the case was specific, that might be one thing, it would help if you could tell me what goes on in the judicial review. So the hotel lower says you cant look at the registries from pre compliance judicial review. What is the nature of that review . The court has considered the question in the fair labor standards act and the banking contacts. California bankers. What it said is the administrative agents with a Police Officer or whoever enforces the law dont have to go to a judge get a one page subpoena. Then there is an objection by the Business Owner in this context and in banking these records the government requires you to produce and what happens what is generally the rule, they put the onus on us to go to a judge and the fact the onus is on us to go to a judge and our objections are limited which is to say we only get to object this is harassing for Law Enforcement means it will be a complete e futile objection, but the prospect that we can go to a judge is the need to behave. In the only objections that are successful are harassment and using this for lawenforcement. This includes barlows. That is the rule. President s in malls for business, has been treated like a public utility. There are requirements for hotels, how big the room has to be, how many people you put in the room. In many locations how much you can charge for the rooms. The hotel owner is not like a private business. He is the unregulated provider of Public Services that has traditionally been regulated closely over the years. How many times and even asked that question . The answer is none. Second thing is the relevant sense how much of this property is protected and private overwhelmingly hotels have constitutional protections. 95 of this hotel is going to be guest rooms and unlike cases like burger, where you inspect open stores or go behindthescenes, the police cant do it. Everybody agrees the Fourth Amendment protect privacy at the hotel so there is greater expectation of privacy on our part. The question Justice Scalia is asking is is there reason to think hotels are more heavily regulated industry than all the other industries we can think of . No. California bankers cases involving banking, banking is heavily regulated. You have to have a charter. The government requires you to keep all kinds of records and remembers those the Bank Customers records, what this court said in both of those cases is with rare exceptions like the 10,000 requirement title i of the Bank Secrecy Act is constitutional because it requires a subpoena. The prospect of getting a judge involved, i will give you one other innkeepers have been regulated centuries and they have duties. The records have to be kept but there are few reasons for keeping those records other than lawenforcement. That i disagree with. We kept these records for time immemorial. We use these records for the very different purposes. Every record of our business transaction we use this information to keep in touch with customers. It is quite proprietary information. I never received anything from them. My goodness. Being frequent guests. This applies to the four seasons and the ritzcarlton and everything else. It is a specific subset but while we are attentive to the point, we are not asserting, guests are not asserting Fourth Amendment rights. Lets not lose sight of the fact that these records show personal information not just the drivers license information but with a you stayed for a religious or political convention. Complaining about the privacy interests of the guests . Here is the point. What you are doing is you have to make an honest assessment whether this information helps to further the Fourth Amendment value of privacy and it does because it has private stuff in it. I am sympathetic to the fact that innkeepers have been regulated for long time. I simply say in 99 of the jurisdictions of this country this is not the rule. There are hundreds, their 18,000 jurisdictions in which this is not the rule and has never been the rule. The nature of that regulation isnt one that impinges on our sense of privacy. What does that tell us about whether our records are private . We can identify huge array of other businesses unregulated. In 2002 the department of justice did a study that found that 335 different provisions of federal law that i just described for you the subpoena first in order to get the record and there was a bare handful of them, none of them involving their records with the possible exception of the occ that says you never have to get a judge involved. 99. 4 jurisdiction. Is that conclude comparing the little hamlet . Los angeles for new york have Something Like this . Dont know the answer about that particular city but they are including began small and sell my. You are saying there are private interests. They can do that by keeping their own record consentual. You, conceded they can require the information as a matter of law. My point is this. It is true. My point is this. They can do everywhere. They can require any business contract. If the government can just say give us that information they reduce the Fourth Amendment to a nominee. The final point is dont be confused with the idea that theres Something Special about hotels. The amount of government regulation is massive. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of regulatory schemes the federal government administers rate is now required to use the subpoena but what selfrespect regulator the subpoena is worthless when what is sought is something that could be easily destroyed hidden or falsified. It is very useful if youre trying to get complicated records that cant be easily altered between the time the subpoena is issued and enforced but nobody issues a subpoena for the murder weapon you suspect is in somebodys house so if these records are more like the murder weapon where something can be easily falsified you seem to concede when you save of police can seize them the subpoena is worth the records are how many hours did someone where get what amount of pay. You cant falsified that as quickly as you can do is in room 2 i dont understand the nature of Record Keeping. The court has insisted on this as a constitutional minimum to keep the enforcement officer in mind and to let us know the enforcement officer. Has been attentive to the fact we dont want to put undue burden on the government and and have using payable records in general are no more complicated than the ledger at a motel that runs by the hour . In the relevant perspective, if it is 50 hours or 35 and the record says 50 in the actual record is 50 and i want to fill in 35, yes. The porche didnt think that was a remote plausible argument in the case i am describing. Thank you. Mr. Rosenkranz. Let me start with the facial point and circled back to the merits. As i hear mr. Goldstein describing the move the only objections that going to be raised are harassment and whether this is for a legitimate purpose but if that is the concern, is a classic as applied challenge. If hotel has a copy coming to them five times a day they say this is really harassment these searches are inappropriate. If it is the purpose of the officer doing criminal investigation rather than actually caring about whether my records are complete, that is and has applied challenge. Plaintiffs of not tried to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional in every circumstance. Pages 19 to 20 we develop numerous scenarios and mr. Goldstein mentioned only one of them. For example where hotel is required to upload records to the Police Department everyday it may not even be a surge but it is less intrusive. That is not this statutes. Didnt the understand those examples. Some of those examples please connect without them. Not that one. Some of them, some of them the ordnance has the purpose of requiring someone to do something they would not otherwise have to submit to but what i gave as an example, the scenario of uploading documents rather than Police Conducting search on the spot was less intrusive. The problem here is the plaintiffs have tried to invalidate every possible application of this ordinance but they havent done the intrusiveness privacy government interest balance that one needs to do for each of them. Semicircle to the merits because i am still very confused about this. Theres always a potential exception going into the home. And circumstances, someone sick on the other side, if there is a fleeing felon in to the place. That doesnt eliminate the need for a warrant. It is not tell us later. Issue. Police cant just keep going in and fish for an excuse. It is a process issue. They are entitled to a warrant, a subpoena, that is what they are challenging. They are not challenging all of the other reasons why the police could go in legitimately. An exception to the Fourth Amendment. They are asking whether this kind of surge generally. Without the other exits and circumstances or Fourth Amendment exceptions. The process here. Understood. Lets not talk about the exceptions, lets talk about another example where the motel continues to keep the register in the open like they did for 100 years and snatches a way when the police come. That is a different issue. It is and the public. For that reason they would have no expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment calculus would be totally different. Then it is not a search at all and it is not the statute that is doing the work. They snatched it away in his ordnance that is doing the work. They have no expectation of privacy we wouldnt save the search at all and please could take away. We would win the Fourth Amendment case but that has been invalidated by signing up on a facial basis. Questions intruded on rebuttal time. Take an extra minute. Let me emphasize that this is the very narrow rule we are talking about. We are talking about a rule that is unlikely to be repeated in so many other circumstances that have been discussed today. Is a single ball of information the government requires hotels to maintain and that mr. Goldstein admitted they should maintain. It is in a context that is especially prone to criminality. People using these hotels precisely to commit crimes, they are detectable in real time but not otherwise in an industry where there have been hundreds of years of regulation including a history of warrantless searches that were brodeur at the time of the founding. Hotel for being searched without warrants at the time of the founding and a history of 100 years of Police Inspections in los angeles itself and even 100 years of these things being open to the public. If the court has no further questions we request thank you, the cases submitted