Laws designed to deter crime by allowing police to inspect records without notice or warrant are unconstitutional for the most part.
That is the essence of a 5-4 split court United States Supreme Court decision released yesterday in the case of City of Los Angeles v. Patel 576 U.S. ___ (2015). Writing the opinion for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the “availability of precompliance review alters the dynamic between officer and the hotel to be searched and reduces the risk that officers will use these administrative searches as a pretext to harass business owners.” In most cases, the court ruled, “business owners can be afforded at least an opportunity to contest an administrative search’s propriety without unduly compromising the government’s ability to achieve its regulatory aims.”
Unfortunately for our industry, the Court did not go so far as to overturn the “closely regulated” industry exception to the rule, thus making the implications of this ruling less clear since the Court has previously ruled that “automotive junkyards” are “closely regulated” and have no expectation of privacy. While Justice Sotomayor took aim at the criteria set in the U.S. v. Burger case for determining valid exceptions to the warrant rule, the Court does not overturn the Burger case, which would have been a significant victory for our industry. That said, there is plenty in the Court’s decision that may alter legal arguments moving forward on recordkeeping and reporting laws. ReMA is analyzing the Court ruling and will report in more detail on the implications of this Court decision for ReMA members. You can read the Court opinion here. For more information, contact Danielle Waterfield.