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 t