The Supreme Court just agreed with what we told federal authorities

Several years ago federal authorities demanded that we make available every evening the names and addresses of all of our guests at our hotel at the Newark Airport. (Now Holiday Inn – Newark Airport.)

We told them that if they inquired about anyone by name or description, we would gladly cooperate as we always have in the past. But we would not allow a ‘fishing expedition’ by routinely turning over information on all of our guests without a court order. This was to protect the privacy of our guests.

I do recall once receiving such a court order and we promptly provided the information. Otherwise, the authorities backed off.
It is gratifying to read in the New York Times that a majority of the Supreme Court justices agreed with our position:

“Justices Rule Police Must Obtain Warrant to Search Hotel or Motel Registries”

NEW YORK TIMES: …”The case concerning hotel registries is likely to have a broad impact, as dozens of cities allow warrantless searches, which law enforcement officials say help them catch fugitives and fight prostitution and drug dealing.

“A group of motel owners challenged the Los Angeles law. They said they were not troubled by its requirement that they keep records about their guests. But they objected to a second part of the ordinance, which allowed the police to look at the registries at any time without the owners’ consent or a search warrant…

“’Absent an opportunity for precompliance review,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “the ordinance creates an intolerable risk that searches authorized by it will exceed statutory limits, or be used as a pretext to harass hotel operators and their guests. Even if a hotel has been searched 10 times a day, every day, for three months, without any violation being found, the operator can only refuse to comply with an officer’s demand to turn over the registry at his or her own peril’.’” … (more)

Sometimes patriotism requires standing up to the government, not just saluting and doing what we are told.

Share

2 Comments

  1. Congrats on your non-compliance. This case is virtually identical to the issue regarding the NSA’s being provided with tel call information by AT&T and Verizon on a mass basis without prior judicial permission. That is dangerous because governments are run by politicians who cannot always be trusted and could use the information provided for nefarious purposes.

    Fortunately that law has now been changed by Congress to limit such information to that which has been cleared first by a judicial tribunal with regard to specific cases where a proper governmental need has been justified to the Court.

  2. Excellent. Congratulations on your judgment and willingness to stand up to authorities on a fishing expedition.

    Isn’t it a sad state of affairs the nation is in. General search warrants were one of the major complaints against the King in the colonial era and the Fourth Amendment was included in the Constitution to respond to those concerns. There have been so many holes in the Fourth Amendment, made by the courts, that now it gets down to the very basic — general searches — thankfully the court ruled the right way.

    Congratulations on seeing this clearly when I am sure others did not.

    K. Z.

Comments are closed.