by Sean Begin
It was just a couple weeks ago that the Supreme Court made headlines when it chose not to hear appeals from states that had same-sex marriage bans struck down by lower court rulings.
Then, just a few days ago, the Supreme Court blocked a Texas state law that would have severely limited abortion providers there, effectively forcing all but eight clinics in the state to shut down. While the ruling is a minor step, it does mean the clinics can keep operating while the appeals move forward.
And now, the Court will hear the appeal of a group of California motel owners who are appealing a law that allows police to seize hotel guest records without a judge’s order.
A lower court ruled that the ban was in violation of the hotel owners’ Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches. While this means police cannot simply walk into a hotel and demand to see guest records, it doesn’t mean that the court saw hotel guests had any rights to privacy.
Hotel guests had given up their right to privacy when they provided information to the hotels, wrote Judge Paul J. Watford for the majority. But the hotel owners are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court will now decide if it sees things the same way. And, while a ruling in line with the lower court would mean a barrier keeping police from easy access to those hotel registries, it fails to address the fact people in a hotel do have a right to that information.
Simply deciding to stay at a hotel or motel doesn’t mean you lose the right to your name. A person’s name is their own to give or keep. A hotel is meant to be a place away from home to stay and relax when on business or vacation. It’s hard to feel that way if the knowledge of your name and information can be seized by police merely for being a guest.
Proponents of the law claim it’s for use against motels that attract drug dealers and prostitutes as a means to stop those types of crime. But what about someone staying there with legitimate reasons? There information becomes easily available to police.
With being a citizen, there comes a certain expectation of privacy. It seems, lately, that those expectations have been continuously curtailed — especially in recent years — in favor of increased power for police and military forces.
While this hotel registry decision will affect only a few, it finds itself in the same family as laws like CISPA, and its ilk, and the Patriot Act, passed following 9/11.
CISPA was a law first proposed in 2011 that would allow internet service providers to share information, including private user information, with the U.S. government. It followed bills like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and has had different incarnations since.
The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11, also restricted civilian rights in favor of a supposed increase of security. It allowed for the creation of the TSA, which has seen hundreds of employees arrested for theft while not apprehending one terrorist.
If the Supreme Court wants to continue the run of solid decisions so far, they would not only uphold the California lower court ruling, but expand on it — thus granting hotel and motel patrons the right to privacy they deserve, regardless of their intention.