City of Los Angeles v. Patel
2015 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about City of Los Angeles v. Patel?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a ninety-day period is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.[1]
Quick Facts City of Los Angeles v. Patel, Argued March 3, 2015 Decided June 22, 2015 ...
City of Los Angeles v. Patel | |
---|---|
Argued March 3, 2015 Decided June 22, 2015 | |
Full case name | City of Los Angeles, Cal. v. Patel, et al. |
Docket no. | 13-1175 |
Citations | 576 U.S. 409 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2443; 192 L. Ed. 2d 435 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78914 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2008); affirmed, 686 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012); reversed on rehearing en banc, 738 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 400 (2014). |
Holding | |
Los Angeles Municipal Code § 41.49, which requires hotel operators to record and keep specific information about their guests on the premises for a ninety-day period and to make those records available to "any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection" on demand, is facially unconstitutional because it fails to provide the operators with an opportunity for pre-compliance review. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
Dissent | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas |
Dissent | Alito, joined by Thomas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Los Angeles Mun. Code § 41.49 |
Close