Los Angeles v. Patel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a hotel-guest-registration ordinance’s “recordkeeping requirement . . . deters criminals from operating on the hotel’s premises”
• noting that closely regulated industries are the exception and concluding that nothing inherent in hotel operation poses a clear and significant risk to the public welfare
• noting that closely regulated industries are the exception and concluding that nothing inherent in hotel operation poses a clear and significant risk to the public welfare
• explaining that “in order for an administrative search to be constitutional, the subject of the search must be afforded an opportunity to obtain precompliance 13 review before a neutral decisionmaker”
• explaining that the sale of liquor “ha[s] such a history of government oversight that no reasonable expectation of privacy could exist for a proprietor . . . of such an enterprise” (quotation marks, editorial marks, and citations omitted)
• distinguishing hotels from other closely regulated industries because “nothing inherent in the operation of hotels poses a clear and significant risk to the public welfare.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).