Title: City of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About
Abstract: I. Introduction 135II. A Split at the Federal Level 141A. ACLU v. Clapper. The Third-Party Doctrine is Alive and Well in the Digital Era 145B. Other Decisions at the Federal and State Level 148III. City of Los Angeles v. Patel: The Court Should Limit Smith v. Maryland and Modify the Third-Party Doctrine 153IV. Conclusion 160I. IntroductionThe United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in City of Los Angeles v. Patel2 to consider whether §41.49 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code violates the Fourth Amendment. Section 41.49 permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless and suspicionless inspections of a hotel owner's guest registry without judicial oversight. A guest registry includes:The guest's name and address; the number of people in the guest's party; the make, model, and license plate number of the guest's vehicle if the vehicle will be parked on hotel property; the guest's date and time of arrival and scheduled date of departure; the room number assigned to the guest; the rate charged and the amount collected for the room; and the method of payment.3The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that hotel owners have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their guest registries, and that the lack of judicial oversight could lead to unreasonable infringements on the privacy rights of hotel owners.4But the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that hotel guests have no expectation of privacy in the guest registries. The Ninth Circuit based this part of its holding on the third-party doctrine, which states that individuals forfeit privacy protections when they voluntarily submit information to a third party. Federal and state courts are split regarding the continued viability of the third-party doctrine, particularly in an era when technological advances have allowed law enforcement and government officials to track a suspect's location with a GPS device, collect cell phone metadata, and monitor an individual's Google search history, all without a warrant.This Article argues that the Supreme Court should reject or at least modify the third-party doctrine in Patel to reflect threats to privacy posed in the digital era. The Ninth Circuit in Patel did not.6 The Court's holding may have profound implications on the constitutionality of the government's surveillance programs, including its ability to collect cell phone metadata without a warrant or probable cause.' Simply put, the constitutionality of section 41.49 can-and should-lead to a principled and much needed shift in favor of stronger privacy protections.The problem with the third-party doctrine, particularly in the digital era when the line between public and private space is collapsing, is that once an individual voluntarily conveys data to a third party, he or she surrenders all privacy protections in that data, regardless of who accesses the data, and irrespective of the purpose for which that access is given. In the pre-digital era, this ordinarily meant that when an individual provided a bank teller with confidential financial information, the individual waived any privacy rights in that information with respect to employees at the bank or government officials who were conducting a criminal or regulatory investigation.8In the digital era, the third-party doctrine means something different, because the scope of the privacy waiver is far more significant. Outgoing cell phone calls can be tracked at any time-without a warrant or any suspicion of wrongdoing-by the government through the subscriber's carrier. Likewise, an individual's search history on Google is subject to monitoring by the government.9 Thus, the sheer volume of information that the government can uncover in connection with its wide-ranging surveillance program casts doubt on the principle that citizens should lose all privacy rights in information merely because they sign a contract with a cell phone service provider or decide to conduct online research. …
Publication Year: 2014
Publication Date: 2014-10-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot